Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Police Manpower

Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on future trends in the number of police officers. [121530]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I announced on 17 May that the additional funding in the Budget provided by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow us to provide for the recruitment of the 5,000 officers allocated under the crimefighting fund by March 2002, a year ahead of my original plans, which were announced on 9 February. Police forces will be able to recruit 3,000 extra officers this year and 2,000 next year.
The projections of police numbers based on forces' estimates for recruitment and wastage now rise as follows: it is projected that, in March 2001, the number will be 126,500 and that, in March 2002, it will be 127,000.

Mr. Paterson: The Home Secretary did not tell us that the previous Government increased police numbers in West Mercia by 405. In only three years, his policies have reduced West Mercia's numbers by 101. The much trumpeted crimefighting fund will still leave West Mercia 12 officers behind in two years' time. When will he wake up to the needs of police in a rural area, get numbers up to those left by the Conservative Government and increase them?

Mr. Straw: As the hon. Gentleman says, police numbers have fallen in West Mercia. They are due to rise by 89 under the crimefighting fund. I congratulate the West Mercia police force: in the year up to September 1999, there was a reduction in recorded crime throughout West Mercia of 2.4 per cent.

Gillian Merron: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement last week of 41 extra police officers for Lincolnshire, whom we will see in two years,

not three. What further Government initiatives to support improved policing can we look forward to in Lincolnshire?

Mr. Straw: In addition to the extra investment in policing in Lincolnshire, which has enjoyed a 4 per cent. increase in support from Government this year, which is above the national average, and the additional investment under the crimefighting fund, there has been investment under the crime reduction programme, which has led to the introduction of closed circuit television and a range of other measures, all of which are designed to assist Lincolnshire police and their excellent record in reducing crime.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is the Home Secretary aware that nothing better illustrates the need for more policemen than the nonsense that is going on in Whitehall? Is he aware that the whole of central London was paralysed on Friday for five hours? It has been paralysed again this morning. Right hon. and hon. Members have found it impossible to get to the House because of a whole load of foreigners who are demonstrating and blocking Whitehall. When I spoke to the inspector, he said that the police were still waiting for enough reinforcements to come to deal with those people. None of us has been able to work because of the noise from the helicopter. If the Home Secretary cannot find us a policeman, perhaps he could introduce some water cannon to deal with the problem, failing which, we still have a few paras left in Aldershot.

Mr. Straw: As you are aware, Madam Speaker, I am fully seized of the problems that have arisen in Parliament street and in Whitehall. I raised them with the Deputy Commissioner of the police in the absence of the Commissioner at 9 o'clock this morning as soon as I saw what the problem was. I understand that the northbound carriageway of Whitehall has been cleared to vehicular traffic and that the southbound carriageway has either been cleared or is about to be.
I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, in all the public order situations in which I have been involved since becoming Home Secretary, the Commissioner has never raised the issue of police numbers as something that has been holding him back in terms of dealing with those problems. Nor has it been raised this morning. Secondly, as is often the case, the situation has turned out to be more complicated to police. I suggest that water cannon would not have been entirely appropriate—although it is an operational matter for the Commissioner—because women and children were among those demonstrating in the carriageway.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Has my right hon. Friend considered the policing requirements in relation to the Mike Tyson fight? Is he aware that one of the promoters of the fight has a violent criminal past and has connections with Glasgow's criminal underworld?

Mr. Straw: As far as that is relevant to this question—it is hard to see how it is; it is about policing in England and Wales—may I say that I took advice about the


possible public order and policing consequences of the latest application in respect of Mr. Tyson, as I did in respect of the one earlier this year.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Does the Home Secretary agree that recruitment and retention of officers are vital to reversing the trend of declining police numbers? At a time when the police are saying that support and respect for the police are a key factor in recruitment, how can he justify the early release so far of 100 criminals jailed for assault on police under his early release scheme? Is that not a kick in the teeth for hard-pressed police? Does he not remember the era when even the Kray twins would think twice about assaulting a police officer? Is it not time that respect for the police was restored?

Mr. Straw: I fully support the need for respect to be shown for police in dealing with difficult operational matters. The home detention curfew scheme is a success, and it was backed fully by the unanimous report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, including the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins).

Mr. Heald: No; not in serious cases.

Mr. Straw: Yes, it was backed in respect of summary offences, of which assault on police is one. I also do not think that we want to hear from Conservative Members about early releases from prison, given the fact that, in one short week, more than 500 prisoners were inadvertently and mistakenly released by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) when she was a Minister of State at the Home Office.
As for respect for the police, the Opposition cannot have it both ways. Their continuous challenging of difficult operational decisions made by the police service in the policing of public demonstrations and in the investigation of difficult murder cases is undermining confidence in the police. It is the Opposition who are doing that.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend recall that we were short of police in 1984, but that the Tory Government decided to concentrate use of police in the coalfields during the miners' strike? Does he remember that the result was that burglary and various other offences were committed elsewhere after those police officers had been herded into Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Scotland and Wales?
As for that demonstration in Whitehall, I have been seriously mistaken. When I spotted all those people, I thought that they were queueing up to see the baby.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is entirely correct on his first point. All I can say on the baby is that I am sure that all of us wish the Prime Minister and his wife every congratulation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Those of us who are of a certain age might also wish to add that we are glad that it is him and not us. However, I am sure that we all wish to send the Blair family every congratulation on their fourth addition.
My hon. Friend's other serious point was very interesting. He is—as ever—correct that, in 1984, under the previous, Conservative Government, there were 4,500 fewer police officers than there are today. Notwithstanding

that and rising crime, the then Conservative Government decided to abstract thousands and thousands of officers to fight industrial action, rather than to deal with that increasing crime. That—with the flawed introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and the thoroughly flawed introduction of the Crown Prosecution Service—explains why, although police numbers increased until 1993, crime doubled under the Conservatives. They lost the plot entirely on law and order.

Spoilt Ballot Papers

Mr. Nigel Waterson: What proportion of ballot papers have been spoilt (a) under systems of proportional representation and (b) in elections to the House in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [121531]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Approximately 0.3 per cent. of the ballot papers that were issued at the 1997 general election were spoiled. Slightly fewer were spoiled in the European parliamentary elections, but marginally more were spoiled in last year's Scottish parliamentary elections. The figure for the elections to the Greater London Authority were higher—largely because a significant number of ballot papers were left blank, but with some people deciding to vote only for the Assembly, and others to vote only for the mayorship.

Mr. Waterson: Does the Minister accept that there is some disappointment because, despite all the ballyhoo over the London elections, turnout was only 33 per cent, compared with a national average of about 30 per cent? To what does he ascribe that turnout—to people's confusion about the Government's ill-judged attempts to tinker with the British voting system, or to a lack of public interest in the new Labour concept of directly elected mayors?

Mr. O'Brien: There is no evidence in the actual statistics suggesting that voters are turned off by the electoral system. In relation to proportional representation, the only thing that is certain about the statistics is that there is uncertainty about how to read them. Our view is that a significant number of people decided that they wanted to vote only for the mayorship. They took the view that they would do it in that way and that they would not vote for the GLA, and that, of course, is their democratic right.
I note in passing that turnout was higher for the Scottish parliamentary elections and the Welsh Assembly elections, for which proportional representation was used, than it was for Britain's council elections, which used first past the post. However, again there is no conclusive evidence on whether people were encouraged or discouraged by the system.

Asylum Seekers

Sir Teddy Taylor: If he will make a statement on progress made in dealing with the numbers of asylum seekers. [121533]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): We are committing substantial new resources to speed up all stages of the asylum system. Over 11,000


initial asylum decisions were taken in March—an all-time record—and the backlog of applications has begun to fall. We are determined to create a system that is genuinely fairer, faster and firmer.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that her recent visit to Southend-on-Sea, when she saw for herself the special problems of seaside towns, was greatly appreciated by officials and, unusually, by councillors of all parties? On the wider front, is she aware of the growing evidence from asylum seekers in Southend and elsewhere that there appears to be a highly organised international criminal group that is offering highly priced places in lorries to potential asylum seekers? Will she consult with the Governments of France and Belgium to see how that appalling activity can best be publicised and tackled?

Mrs. Roche: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and for his original invitation to Southend. I was very impressed by the excellent work that has been done by a number of people in Southend, particularly by social services and housing officials. I agree with his point about organised crime. The smuggling of vulnerable human beings is a worldwide trade. Unfortunately, sometimes those involved are in cahoots with some of the unscrupulous immigration advisers whom we are determined to tackle. It is sad that the Conservative Government did not deal with that problem, but we intend to do so.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister comment on the cost of holding a large number of asylum seekers in prison, the poverty of asylum-seeking families who are denied access to income support and forced to live on less than 70 per cent. of it and the violent language that is being used by many commentators and others towards asylum seekers, which permeates down and ends up in violent racist attacks on asylum seekers on the streets of this country? Will she call for calm, tolerance and understanding of the reasons why people seek asylum when they are often fleeing from oppression and injustice in their own country?

Mrs. Roche: I share my hon. Friend's view and that of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has spoken recently on the issue, that across the decades this country has a proud record of welcoming people. I am pleased that we have had that policy, which this Government will continue. It would be nice to see more press attention given to policies such as those that we have promoted on refugee integration. However, we have to keep a balance. It is also right that we seek to deter those who make unfounded applications. While people are here having their claims processed, we must offer them sanctuary and safety, and maintain and accommodate them. It is in everybody's interests that we speed up the system. We are doing that.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Some weeks ago we were entertained by the spectacle of the Home Secretary greeting nine clandestine entrants off the back of a lorry. In a parliamentary answer, he subsequently told me that six of them had claimed asylum,

but he was not sure where the other three were. Is the Minister able to tell us how many of those six are in the country and where the other three are?

Mrs. Roche: As far as greeting is concerned, my right hon. Friend was visiting Dover to see the excellent work done by our immigration service in implementing the new civil penalty, which has been a tremendous success in the few weeks that it has been up and running. That throws the opposition of the right hon. Lady and her colleagues into sharp relief. The asylum seekers mentioned are going through the process in the normal way. The difference is that we are speeding up the system so that everybody's claim can be treated fairly. We will give refugee status—quite rightly—to those who have made a genuine claim for asylum. However, we will swiftly return those who have made unfounded claims.

Miss Widdecombe: So the conclusion is that six are still here and the whereabouts of three are not yet known. How many of the 37 who applied for asylum after the Afghan plane hijacking are still here?

Mrs. Roche: The right hon. Lady knows that those people are still here because they are going through the appeals process. Is it a new Conservative policy to remove the right to appeal? If so, the House and the British public have a right to know.

Miss Widdecombe: So they are still here as well. How many applications for asylum have been refused, including on appeal, since the Government came to power? How many of those who have been refused have been removed? How many are still here?

Mrs. Roche: In the last period for which figures are available, about 7,600 were removed. That is the highest number of people ever removed. To continue that, we will need more detention capacity at the end of this period. It is no good the right hon. Lady chuntering on if she wishes to deny the implementation of the civil penalty.

Miss Widdecombe: How many?

Mrs. Roche: I have given the right hon. Lady the figure. The right hon. Lady denies that her Government's record was much worse than ours and left us with a system that needed extra staff and resources. We are delivering; the Conservatives continue to oppose.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: They may not be genuine asylum seekers, but the Minister knows of my concern over the jailing in Greenock prison—a decision made by immigration officials—of two young Algerian brothers, Hisham and Mohammed Shetto, aged 15 and 17 respectively. They may be young scallywags, but they surely do not deserve such treatment. When will they be transferred to suitable accommodation? It has been put to me that they ought to receive a smidgen of the sympathetic consideration given to Mr. Mike Tyson.

Mrs. Roche: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who gave me notice that he hoped to catch your eye, Madam


Speaker, to raise this matter. It is certainly not normal practice to detain young people under the age of 18. However, detention may be appropriate under exceptional circumstances. I will be delighted to go into more detail with my hon. Friend. However, I can say that the ages of the boys are unclear. The brothers were given temporary admission into the care of the local authority, but their extreme behaviour meant that the arrangement could not continue. The Immigration Service is making strenuous efforts to find appropriate care arrangements.

Security Service

Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on the capability of the Security Service to monitor subversive groups. [121534]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The functions of the Security Service are set out in section 1 of the Security Service Act 1989 as amended by the 1996 Act. The Security Service cannot, on its own account, investigate activities, or planned activities, unless they are threats to national security.
It has been the long-standing policy of successive Governments not to comment on the operations and capabilities of the Security Service. However, I can say that I, as Home Secretary, and the director general of the service are both content that the service is properly resourced to undertake its statutory functions.

Dr. Lewis: All I can say in response is that they are two people with a minority opinion. Did not the Security Service used to have as its F branch a highly effective organisation for monitoring subversion on the extreme left and the extreme right? Is not it a fact that, both last year and this year, the Home Secretary came to the House bemoaning the fact that demonstrations in the City and Whitehall were impossible properly to take precautions against because of a lack of advance knowledge of what the demonstrators were going to do? Will the Home Secretary now confirm that it was a mistake for his Government to close down F branch of the Security Service as they did, thus enfeebling the ability of the Security Service to take preventive measures, notwithstanding the grudges that he and many of his right hon. and hon. Friends have against F section for its successful monitoring of their activities in the past?

Mr. Straw: I have to explain to the hon. Gentleman that I bear few grudges and I bear no grudge against whoever it was who thought that their days could best be spent on deciding whether I was subversive. Events showed at the time, as they have since, that that was—generally speaking—a waste of public money. The hon. Gentleman's definition of subversion stretches more widely than that of the director general of the Security Service and that in the Security Service Act 1989. The Act's definition is particular and, as the then Home Secretary—now Lord Hurd—said at the time of its passage,
There is no power in the Bill to enable the Security Service to take any interest in any person or organisation or any activity or enterprise which presents no threat to the security of the nation as a whole.—[Official Report, 17 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 218.]

That has been the template for the service since the Act came into force in 1989. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman's view is that even the new Labour party is a deeply subversive organisation.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Unlike the Home Secretary, I do bear a grudge, and it is against Mrs. Stella Rimington for what she did to the miners in 1984 by abusing the security services. Will the Home Secretary carefully consider the serious allegations contained in this weekend's The Sunday Times in relation to Mrs. Rimington and Mr. Michael Bettaney and, in particular, whether Mr. Bettaney was an alcoholic who had no business operating in the most sensitive areas of the security services? I do not ask for a reply off the top of my right hon. Friend's head, but I would like a considered reply from the Home Office.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the saving clause added to his question, because I cannot give a reply off the top of my head. I will look into the matter. I would also point out that if there is a responsibility for the fact that in any period in our history the activities of the Security Service have ranged more widely than they would do today, that responsibility ultimately lies with those Ministers directly involved—the Home Secretary and Prime Minister of the day—not with those who were public servants.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Home Secretary agree that the capability of the Security Service to monitor subversive groups, or perform any other activity successfully, is wholly undermined by the example being set by Dame Stella Rimington in seeking to publish her memoirs? Does he further agree that members of the Security Service should be under a lifetime duty of confidentiality and that Dame Stella's actions set a wholly unwelcome precedent?

Mr. Straw: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Members of the Security Service and other similar agencies are under lifetime obligations that they entered into voluntarily upon their employment. I understand that Dame Stella Rimington's manuscript was submitted by her in draft to the Cabinet Secretary in accordance with the normal procedures and will be dealt with according to those same procedures.

Hunting with Hounds

Mr. Gordon Prentice: When he expects to receive the report of the Burns Inquiry; and if he will make a statement. [121535]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): We have always indicated that Lord Burns hopes to submit his report to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary by late spring. My right hon. Friend hopes to publish it shortly thereafter.

Mr. Prentice: That is splendid news, but what is the Government's general position? Do they still want a ban on hunting with dogs to be piloted through the Commons by means of the private Member's Bill mechanism? If so, would not that risk the measure being torpedoed in the


House of Lords? Would not it make sense for the Government to bring forward a multi-option Bill, along the lines of the one that became the Sunday Trading Act 1994? That would allow hon. Members of all parties to express a definitive and conclusive opinion on an issue that at present is merely festering?

Mr. O'Brien: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. The Government are, of course, neutral on the issue, which is a matter for a free vote in the House of Commons. The Government took the view that the best way forward was by way of a private Member's Bill, after the Burns inquiry has reported. We have said that we will offer reasonable Government time, if necessary, and drafting assistance for a private Member's Bill, which would be considered by the House on a free vote. I understand that all parties are likely to allow a free vote.
I am sure that my hon. Friend would be pleased to welcome to his camp the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). Unlike the rest of the Conservative party, she has always made clear her belief that there should be a ban on fox hunting.

Mr. John Bercow: Has the Burns inquiry assessed the likelihood of Britons hunting abroad in the event that hunting is banned in this country?

Mr. O'Brien: What the Burns inquiry assesses must be included in the terms of reference that we have set for it. It is for the inquiry to determine how to interpret the terms of reference.

Crime Statistics

Fiona Mactaggart: What progress he has made with preparations for collating statistics about crime, police numbers and achievements in preventing and tackling crime by basic command units. [121536]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): We are committed to publishing information that allows local people to judge and compare performance. Recorded crime statistics were published at basic command unit level for the first time in January this year. The next publication will be in July. We are currently preparing an analysis of statistical families of basic command units, which would allow more effective comparison between different parts of the country.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. However, is he aware that the figures that have been published so far seem to demonstrate that police in the town of Slough work much harder than do police in the rest of the Thames valley? Will he consider making that information more widely available by publishing how many constables are attached to each basic command unit, as well as the number of crimes that have been committed? That would show where the police have to work hardest, and it might persuade our chief constable that he should allocate more constables to Slough.

Mr. Clarke: The question of the work rates of officers in different parts of the Thames Valley police force is a matter not for me but for the chief constable. We are prepared to consider publishing more data about what is happening at basic command unit level. That data would

include the number of officers allocated to each unit. The inspectorate of constabulary intends to carry out a rolling range of inspections at basic command unit level from April 2001, which will allow a detailed analysis of the sort of matter that my hon. Friend has raised.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Figures from the Home Office research department and the British crime survey show that, out of every 100 crimes committed, 47 are reported and 27 are recorded. However, only five crimes are cleared up, and only three result in a caution or conviction.
Does the Minister agree that the priorities are to prevent crime and to detect it? To avoid an increasingly ridiculous British auction of ever-more draconian sentences being imposed—an approach that has not been effective in the past—will he convene a meeting with his counterparts in the other two main parties to examine what works to deter crime? Will he undertake to ensure that every community, rural and urban, can at least have officers on the ground? That would reassure those communities, and make sure that someone is in the front line, preventing and detecting crime.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman asks a compendium question. I certainly agree that we are focusing on reducing and detecting crime by all means possible. The whole thrust of our policy is, as the hon. Gentleman says, on what works, identifying the best technique and driving it forward. That is why we established the best value regime for the police earlier this year. I wish that politicians of all parties would share that aspiration and stop trying to undermine confidence in the police, as some of our opponents frequently do in what they say. I confirm that our approach is to see what works and to drive crime down.

Mr. Robin Corbett: There is a wide welcome in my constituency for the provision of such information at basic or operational command unit level. Does the Minister agree that it makes it far easier for members of the public to understand what the police are doing—their success and the challenges that they face—if these partnerships are built from the bottom up rather than from headquarters down?

Mr. Clarke: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The purpose of what we intend to do is to raise public debate and have much more positive discussion about strategies and ways in which people can work together. An important part of publishing the data at BCU level is also to align the boundaries of basic command units and local authorities and therefore crime reduction partnerships. That allows us to establish the best ways of reducing crime in different parts of the country.

Mr. David Lidington: But surely the Government's statistics demonstrate that after five years in which recorded crime consistently fell, we are now seeing a disturbing upward trend in recorded crime in England and Wales. What is the Minister's explanation for this renewed surge in crime?

Mr. Clarke: The statistics actually demonstrate strikingly different levels of crime reduction performance in various basic command units. That is the single most


striking factor. It is true for police authorities generally but, more important, it is true at basic command unit level. Basic command units which might be thought to be broadly similar in character are in fact demonstrating dramatically different levels of performance in bringing crime down. That is why we introduced the best value regime and why we are publishing the data—to get a much more effective and accurate fix on what really will bring crime down, which is the whole focus of what we are trying to do.

Community Police Officers

Mr. Hilary Benn: If he will make a statement on the role of community police officers. [121537]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): The community beat officer is a vital link between the police service as a whole and the community policed by that particular officer. A dedicated, proactive community beat officer plays an important role in fighting crime, whether by identifying and tackling local crime problems, providing intelligence, or combating fear of crime. An inspection currently being carried out by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, entitled "Winning the Race 3", pays special attention to individual forces' use of community beat officers as a key factor in service delivery.

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply, and in particular his comments about the valuable contribution made by community beat officers to visible local policing. When does he expect all police forces to have in place a policy covering the limited circumstances in which such officers can be taken off their beat duties, so that they can spend as much time as possible doing the job which they are employed to do?

Mr. Clarke: One of the aspirations of the inspectorate of constabulary's report, "Winning the Race 3", is to increase the number of forces that have policies of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend. Over the past 10 months or so, the number of forces that have policies in place has nearly doubled, and they continue to proceed. We do not have a specific timetable for all forces, but we have the aspiration of ensuring that that happens as quickly as possible.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Is the Minister aware that, notwithstanding the very welcome visit of the noble Lord Bassam of Brighton to the Hillingdon borough, hosted by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), and our joint visit, as a threesome, to see the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about policing matters, especially community policing, I have been informed that our borough is to have not a single extra uniformed policeman to put on the beat or anywhere else? Is it not the case that Her Majesty's Government are seriously misleading the public, certainly as far as outer London is concerned, with their bland assertions that more manpower will be available, when clearly it will not?

Mr. Clarke: I remind the hon. Gentleman that under his Government, the number of Metropolitan police officers fell by 2,000. The subject of policing in outer London has been widely debated, not only by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends but by others. It is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to decide what the allocation of his resources is. I know that he is committed to very effective policing in outer London, including the area that the hon. Gentleman represents, and I am sure that he said that to the hon. Gentleman when he met him.

Ms Glenda Jackson: The invaluable contribution that has been made to my constituency by community police officers is immensely valued by my constituents, not least in reducing the incidence of drug abuse, racial harassment and, more particularly, domestic violence. Therefore, my hon. Friend will be aware, as I am sure are all hon. Members, of the stupefaction felt by many of my constituents at the decision of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to allow into the country for the second time a proven abuser of women. Can my hon. Friend be sure that he will issue direct and reinforcing guidance to all community police officers that, despite my right hon. Friend's decision, violence against women is not endorsed by the Government?

Mr. Clarke: I can confirm that domestic violence, and particularly violence against women, is a significant target of the Government's policy. We have established many support programmes, which have been focused on reducing domestic violence, securing a better level of reporting of it and getting a much better level of co-operation between the police and social workers, for example, to fight domestic violence.
The particular decision to which my hon. Friend referred is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and is not related specifically to the role of community police officers.

Mr. David Heath: I welcome what the Minister said about community policing, but does he agree that for many chief constables community policing and, indeed, the entire patrol function is a marginal activity when resources are scarce, and tends to be lost? If he is to produce figures relating to basic command units, as described in response to the previous question, would it not be important to ensure that resources follow need in basic command units, particularly in rural areas, and especially those rural areas that come under a force that covers urban areas as well? Will they get the additional support that they need for rural policing?

Mr. Clarke: I do not think that any chief constable thinks that community policing is a marginal activity, to use the hon. Gentleman's term. I have visited many forces and I have discussed this very matter with the senior police officers responsible. They are committed to establishing regimes of community policing that really will make a difference. As the hon. Gentleman says, publishing data at BCU level will enable us to have a much more informed debate about these matters in future, which will be in the interests of all concerned.

Burglaries (Greater Manchester)

Ms Hazel Blears: What targets for burglary reduction he has set for Greater Manchester police. [121538]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): Local crime reduction targets for police forces are set by local police authorities. Greater Manchester police authority has set a target of achieving a 25 per cent. reduction in domestic burglary by April 2005.

Ms Blears: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I am delighted that Salford has recently received nearly £1 million to tackle burglary in the city and to help meet the 25 per cent. reduction target. However, we have serious criminals who launder money. I am particularly pleased by the announcement of plans to seize the assets of criminals.
Does my right hon. Friend recall that the criminal career of Al Capone was brought to an end by convictions for tax evasion rather than murder? Will he, like Eliot Ness, pursue serious criminals in equally innovative ways in future?

Mr. Boateng: I am not so sure that Eliot Ness and the Untouchables are the immediate analogies that spring to mind, but the answer is yes.

Special Constables

Mr. Andrew Stunell: What measures he plans to encourage recruitment of additional special constables. [121539]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The Government continue to support the efforts of the police to recruit more special constables. The Home Office has produced a recruitment video, a series of posters, and a recruitment brochure, and funded a two-week national radio and press campaign in March 2000, at a cost of £700,000. Research into why people join the special constabulary has been commissioned. The results of the research and the March campaign will be available shortly, will be made known to the House and will help focus plans for the next recruitment campaign.
Specials now meet higher recruitment standards and are better trained and equipped; and offer a much better support to their regular colleagues and, therefore, a better service to the public.

Mr. Stunell: I was pleased to hear the Home Secretary refer to a radio recruitment programme. Is he aware that in Stockport, which is part of Greater Manchester, special constables had to have their radios provided by funds from the local council because the Greater Manchester police force was not able to fund them? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a lack of status and a lack of funding, which make the job somewhat unattractive for those who really could play a constructive part in policing our community?

Mr. Straw: The way in which specials are used varies considerably from one force area to another. Some forces, and their regular officers, embrace the specials and use

them effectively. In other forces, there remains an implication that they are unpaid labour, and the regular officers are slightly stand-offish. In truth, these members of the community give of their time freely and voluntarily to supplement the work of regular officers, which they do extremely well. We have sought to raise recruitment and training standards for those officers so that they can be relied on more readily than may sometimes have been the case in the past. We have taken steps to improve their expenses and sick pay, and—which is important—to provide them with insurance in case of legal action against them.

Mr. David Winnick: As the role of special constables is obviously to fight criminality, what message do they receive if a convicted rapist such as Tyson is allowed into the United Kingdom? Is my right hon. Friend aware that men, as well as women, are deeply opposed to letting him in? I hope that my right hon. Friend will understand the feelings on his Back Benches and reconsider his decision.

Mr. Straw: It is hard to see quite how that question arises on this matter, but it is my responsibility to take such decisions on the basis of the rules and the law as they exist. The simple fact is that that particular immigration rule had been observed more in the breach than in the observance. No proper arrangements had been made for requiring such information from those who were not visa nationals and who were arriving in this country. As it turned out, other people with more serious convictions had come and gone without notice. Above all, I had to take account of whether Mr. Tyson's entry would pose a risk to the safety of the public. On the basis of the history of his application—

Mr. Winnick: That is not the issue.

Mr. Straw: With great respect to my hon. Friend, on the basis of the history of the application and the need for fairness and consistency, I took the decision that I took. I also laid before the House a consultative document, on which my hon. Friend may wish to comment, proposing changes in the rules and their more consistent application in future.

Mr. Edward Garnier: The Home Secretary will recognise that special constables are prime examples of the citizen in uniform. They perform many of the community policing roles that we would wish regular officers to play. What has the Home Secretary to say to the police about housing costs, which are one of the reasons why it is so difficult to encourage police officers to live in the more expensive parts of the country?

Mr. Straw: I have two things to say about housing costs. First, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise, following the abolition of the housing allowance in 1994, under the Sheehy changes, some forces, particularly the Metropolitan police, have, because of rising prices, found it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain officers. Secondly, in recognition of the particular problems faced in the Metropolitan police service, I have authorised the offer of a substantial increase in the London allowance for post-1994


Metropolitan police officers. The offer is currently in arbitration, but I hope that there will be a satisfactory outcome as soon as possible.

Ms Claire Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the pay increase in the Metropolitan police to which he has just referred is causing severe problems for Hertfordshire police and other constabularies around London? It is making it more difficult for other forces to recruit and retain officers, not only as special constables but as regulars. What plans has he to assist those constabularies to retain officers as well as recruiting them?

Mr. Straw: A working group in the Police Negotiating Board is considering the matter. I am aware of representations made to me personally by the chief constable of Hertfordshire and two other chief constables in the home counties. I have to say that the quicker they produce firm evidence about their recruiting problems, the quicker and better able we shall be to respond.

Child Curfew Orders

Mr. Desmond Swayne: How many child curfew orders have been (a) applied for and (b) granted. [121540]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): No applications have been received from local authorities to establish child curfew schemes. The failure of some local authorities to recognise the importance of ensuring that they use the full range of powers that are now available to them to counter anti-social behaviour is a matter of continuing concern.

Mr. Swayne: What is a matter of concern is that the arrangements are entirely unworkable. What is the Minister going to do to make them operable?

Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman is misguided. If he consults his own crime and disorder partnership, he will find that it makes good use of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Indeed, I have a copy of the partnership document; it indicates that a group has been established, led by the chief officer of police and the chief executive of the district council, to look at anti-social behaviour orders—which must be seen alongside the child curfew orders. That group is making considerable progress. The hon. Gentleman should be supporting his local partnerships, rather than knocking the Act that set them up.

Mr. Frank Roy: My right hon. Friend will be aware that child curfew orders have been used, as a last resort, on housing schemes in the west of Scotland. Does he agree that the use of role models is also important for children? If so, what would he tell children on the west of Scotland housing schemes whom I represent about looking to a rapist and a person who bites off someone else's ear during a boxing match as a role model. What would he tell children who think of Mike Tyson as a role model?

Mr. Boateng: I should tell them that a large range of role models is available and that they do not have to turn to Mike Tyson or anyone like him in order to find one.

Miss Anne McIntosh: The Minister referred to anti-social behaviour orders. Will he tell the House how many have been issued? Why does he think that the partnerships to which he referred actually work—rather than responsibility being taken by the police?

Mr. Boateng: Forty—and half of them were issued specifically in relation to juveniles. If the hon. Lady talks to her own local partnership, she will find that as valuable as the order itself is the fact that the Crime and Disorder Act has enabled local agencies—education, social services, health, probation and the police—to work together to tackle those problems, thus making it unnecessary in many cases to apply for an order. The important point is that the power exists; it is being used, and it is working.

Anti-drugs Policies (Netherlands)

Mr. Paul Flynn: What plans he has to visit the Netherlands to investigate anti-drugs policies. [121541]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): None—although, recently, I was there for three days on holiday.

Mr. Flynn: How does the Minister respond to the conclusions of the Police Foundation that, after 20 years of decriminalisation in the Netherlands, cannabis use is far less than it is in Britain, and that that country has the lowest ratio of drug deaths in Europe? After 30 years of prohibition in this country, heroin use has increased by 2,000 per cent., and cannabis use is the highest in Europe. Has not the Police Foundation demolished the main plank of the Government's policy by also concluding that young people in Holland are far less likely to experiment with heroin than those elsewhere in Europe?
Apart from making jokes on the subject, will my hon. Friend fulfil his important duty as a Minister, to reduce drug deaths by examining fairly all the evidence, including the success of the Netherlands?

Mr. Clarke: I do not make jokes about the subject. Drug taking among young people is one of the most serious and tragic matters with which we have to deal. It is incumbent on Governments to try by all means possible to drive down drug taking by young people. For that reason, I did not accept the conclusions of the Police Foundation report.
It is not clear that the Dutch policy has been a success. The Dutch Government have reduced both the overall numbers of coffee shops and the amount of cannabis that can be bought with impunity in any one transaction. I understand that they will be reviewing the policy again this year. The semi-legal trade in cannabis in the Netherlands has also helped to make that country a safer place for big-time crooks. That is why there are substantial problems in that regard.
In addition, it is incumbent on us all to appreciate that there are significant contradictions between the coffee shop policy in the Netherlands and international agreements. The single convention on narcotic drugs 1961 states that effective measures against abuse of narcotic drugs require co-ordinated and universal action; the convention calls for international co-operation aimed at common objectives. That is our policy. It is not a joking matter at all; the Government are doing all that we can to drive down drug taking.

Asylum Seekers

Mr. Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on the dispersal programme for asylum seekers. [121542]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): We began to phase in the new support arrangements for destitute asylum seekers on 3 April 2000 for those who applied for asylum at port, and in-country in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
On 17 April, we extended the new arrangements to those applying while in Kent, and to applicants who have had their first refusal of asylum while living in Kent and are appealing against that decision. We hope to bring all other new applicants on to the new arrangements within six months.

Mr. Gapes: I am grateful for that reply, and my hon. Friend will know that I was one of the hon. Members who supported the idea of a dispersal policy because it would take pressure off the London boroughs. However, will she assure me that the policy will be properly funded, that the centres will be properly established and that problems will not lead to people leaving those areas, returning to London and becoming destitute because there are inadequate support mechanisms in those localities? Will she also assure me that the Government will not adopt the policy of the Conservative party of locking up all asylum seekers and stopping people living with their relatives in this country if they have them?

Mrs. Roche: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns. As another London Member, I know very well the situation in London. That is why we made the arrangements for dispersal, and I reassure my hon. Friend that we are making arrangements outside London. As he will know, we are grant-funding some refugee organisations to provide support services, to assist with a variety of matters and to help local authorities and other service providers. So far, the arrangements have gone very well and I am grateful to all the people who have supported them.

Dr. Evan Harris: The Minister will know that we have corresponded over the possible use of a former old people's home in my constituency to house asylum seekers on a temporary basis until the site is sold for redevelopment. Its use is being considered because of the extremely high cost of bed-and-breakfast accommodation at a time when the accommodation situation is tight. Will the hon. Lady join me in condemning the activities of Conservatives locally, who have claimed that the proposal is to build a detention centre at Oseney Court on the Botley road, and will she

also condemn the conduct of a local councillor who talks of strangers kicking elderly people out of their accommodation?

Mrs. Roche: I understand completely the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. They illustrate again the complete nonsense of the Conservatives' policy. I was very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the contact that we have had on this issue and it is apparent that Members of Parliament on both sides of the House take such cases very seriously, particularly as they affect their constituencies. I am willing to discuss cases on an individual basis with hon. Members and I hope that the attitudes that they have taken will continue to prevail.

Electoral Procedures Experiment

Maria Eagle: What reports he has received about the response of the electorate to the experimental voting arrangements tried out in the May local elections. [121543]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Under the terms of the Representation of the People Act 2000, local authorities have three months in which to carry out a formal evaluation of their recent electoral pilot schemes. The evaluation reports are likely to include an assessment of the electorate's attitude towards the schemes.

Maria Eagle: Given that only the postal balloting experiment appears to have led to an appreciable increase in turnout, and that turnout at the recent local elections fell generally, will my hon. Friend consider extending the provisions of full postal balloting to all local council elections?

Mr. O'Brien: There is certainly a strong case, on its merits, for all-postal ballots in council elections. However, the way in which the evaluation reports will have to be examined and the consideration that we shall have to give to the administration of the pilot schemes means that we are not able, as yet, to make a decision about such ballots. We hope that many local authorities will apply to run pilot schemes in future elections.

Sir Sydney Chapman: The Minister will know that an unusually high number of ballot papers were spoilt in the recent elections for the mayor and assembly of London. Earlier, the Minister seemed to imply that ballot papers were spoilt because many electors voted only for the mayor, not the assembly. As those ballots were completely separate, is the Minister prepared to publish a paper saying how the ballot papers were spoilt so that Londoners may be better informed on this important and worrying issue?

Mr. O'Brien: In the mayoral election, 38,141 ballot papers were spoilt, equivalent to 2.18 per cent. of those issued. In the Greater London Authority constituency elections, 88,142 ballots were spoilt, or 5.04 per cent. In the GLA top-up, 161,972 ballots were spoilt, equivalent to 9.27 per cent. I trust that that deals with the hon. Gentleman's question.

Steel Industry

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, to debate an important, urgent and specific matter, namely
the major announcement by Corus, formerly British Steel, to make 168 redundancies and reduce shift operations in my constituency.
The Workington plant is one of the world's principal railway line production plants. Last year, Corus controversially acquired its French competitor Sogerail, which it is now trying to maintain close to full capacity. The matter is important because the announcement is disastrous for the future of west Cumbria. Jobs are now at stake, not only in steel but more widely in support services and allied industries. Workington already has some of the highest levels of unemployment in the region, and we cannot afford for the steel industry to be run down.
The matter requires urgent debate because, at this very moment, Corns is considering further investment decisions both within and outside the euro area, especially in France, which totally undermine the viability of its west Cumbrian operations. Furthermore, decisions taken in Brussels to reduce percentage levels of regional assistance to west Cumbria on the basis that it has a healthy steel industry are no longer valid and need to be reconsidered.
The voice of the UK Parliament needs to be heard. The matter is specific to the national debate on Britain's export performance as, historically, the Workington plant has exported 70 per cent. of its production worldwide, as well as supplying almost the entire UK requirement for railway lines. The decision exposes the unpalatable truth that, thanks to Corns and its management, Britain will change from being the world's leading exporter of railtrack products to being one of its largest importers. The implications for the balance of payments are unacceptable and draconian. May we have a debate, Madam Speaker, if not today, certainly in the near future?

Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, I must give a decision without stating my reasons for it. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I refer you to Question 9 on additional special constables, which was asked by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell)? The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) used his supplementary question as an opportunity to ask a question about Mike Tyson. He is perfectly entitled to try his luck and I do not blame him for that. Indeed, we all try to do that occasionally. The Home Secretary gave a long reply on what I accept is a matter of public interest. However, the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Walsall, North made no attempt to relate the matter to special constables. Has a precedent been set? Can we use any question on the Order Paper as an opportunity to ask about a matter of public interest, just because a Minister is taking a decision on that matter?

Madam Speaker: I believe that the supplementary question was in order on this occasion because the question on the Order Paper refers to "additional special constables". The Home Secretary was asked whether additional special constables were needed to police what was about to take place. As the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) knows, I try to be very careful not to allow hon. Members on either side of the House to raise issues and questions that do not relate directly to the Order Paper. I am most concerned about that and ask hon. Members to help me in that, as the hon. Gentleman has done today. I shall continue to watch the matter in the future.

Mr. Richard Burden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on the implications for procedure in the House of a report in The Guardian today. It is reported that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) wrote a letter on 14 May 1998 to a noble Lord, setting out his tactics for blocking a number of private Members' Bills. In that letter, he stated that the Government should not get the Fireworks Bill
as punishment for letting their backbenchers play around with hunting.
Does the right hon. Gentleman put chasing foxes before the welfare of children and animals?
In terms of procedure, is it right for a Member to seek to persuade the Government to prevent hon. Members from exercising their right to introduce private Members' legislation in the House?

Madam Speaker: I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman gave me notice of his point of order, but he will understand that I can respond to it only in so far as it concerns the Chair. The proceedings on the Fireworks Bill in the 1997–98 Session were entirely in order. There is nothing in the press report that requires a ruling from me.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that on 17 November last year—[Laughter.] We know that you have a wonderful


memory. On 17 November last year, the opening sitting of this Session, we passed a Sessional Order stating:
That the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis do take care that during the Session of Parliament the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House and that no disorder be allowed in Westminster Hall, or in the passages leading to this House during the Sitting of Parliament, and that there be no annoyance therein or thereabouts; and that the Serjeant at Arms attending this House do communicate this Order to the Commissioner aforesaid.
You will have heard that the Home Secretary had a meeting with the Commissioner this morning, but the motion that we passed last year has been flouted.
What discussions have you had with the Serjeant at Arms so that he might imbue the police with a little more verve to get on with clearing the streets, not only so that right hon. and hon. Members may have access to the House, but so that those going about their business in the metropolis may not be disrupted?

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Three times this morning I passed the demonstration in Whitehall. Members of Parliament have access by various means from parliamentary buildings on to the embankment and into the House of Commons. The behaviour of the Metropolitan police on this occasion has been exemplary—they have dealt with a difficult situation in which large numbers of women and children have been sitting along Whitehall. I should not like our sessional use to be in some way a criticism of the Metropolitan police.

Madam Speaker: The House will have heard the Secretary of State answer a supplementary question today relating to the matter. I regret it if some hon. Members were delayed in reaching the House today, as I regret inconvenience that has been caused to the public. I went out at 12.45 pm today to look at the situation, and I found some hon. Members coming in, including the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), walking along as if nothing had happened. She told me that she had no problems getting through, but I expect that of the hon. Lady.
As the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) says, the matter is serious and a Sessional Order requires the Commissioner to disperse all assemblies and proceedings that cause obstruction or disorder within the area covered by the order on any day when Parliament is sitting. Of course I recall that. We go through those orders when Parliament is opened and we take them seriously, as I do.
I discussed this morning's events with the Home Secretary, who was kind enough to telephone me to give me his view. I do not disclose what is said by the right hon. Gentleman or other Ministers, but I had confidence in what he said. The Home Secretary and I agreed that

there was a clear breach of the Sessional Order. I know what action he took as soon as he was aware that there was some disturbance. I have been given an assurance by the Home Secretary that there will be a full investigation to try to ensure that there is no recurrence.
The hon. Member for Aldershot mentioned the Serjeant at Arms. I know that he has been doing his best all morning to deal with the problem on behalf of hon. Members.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of obvious public anxiety and the seriousness of the situation between Eritrea and Ethiopia, have you received any requests from the Foreign Office to make a statement about its efforts to invoke a United Nations-sponsored ceasefire and peace conference to settle an appalling conflict between two very poor countries where many innocent lives are being lost for no purpose?

Madam Speaker: No, I have received no indication that the Foreign Secretary wishes to make a statement on that.

Mr. John Bercow: Further to an earlier point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that the House is grateful for your ruling on Question 9. However, I seek your guidance on a general issue. If it transpired from the Official Report that an hon. Member had referred neither to the wording nor the meaning of the question on the Order Paper, should other hon. Members deduce that such a precedent should not be imitated?

Madam Speaker: If an hon. Member put a supplementary question that did not relate to the substantive question, I hope that I would stop him midway. I try to do that on such occasions. Earlier, I explained why I allowed the supplementary on Question 9. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter further, he can do that through an early-day motion.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At noon today, an announcement was expected about the future of the millennium dome. At 2.30 pm, no announcement had been made. As you know, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport chairs the Millennium Commission. Has he approached you to say that he will come to the House to announce whether the dome will be sold early, or to explain the future of the dome, which was the shining light of new Labour?

Madam Speaker: I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I do not believe that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is seeking to make a statement on that issue today.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords] and Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords] and the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill—

Timetable

1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords] shall be completed at today's sitting and brought to a conclusion (if not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

(2) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and brought to a conclusion (if not previously concluded) five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

Questions to be put

2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on either Bill to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.

(2) The Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(4) If two or more Questions would otherwise fall to be put under sub-paragraph (2)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

Miscellaneous

3. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply at today's sitting to proceedings to which this Order applies.

4. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on either Bill are taken or to recommit either Bill.

6. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to either Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

7. If at today's sitting—

(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Seven o'clock; but
(b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before then,

proceedings on that Motion shall stand postponed until the conclusion of those proceedings.

8. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to either Bill.

Supplemental Orders

9. The proceedings on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order

shall (if not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.

10. If at today's sitting the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

I shall speak briefly because the House has important business to consider this afternoon. The motion would allow for up to five hours of debate on the timetable and both Bills. I hope that it will not be necessary to spend three hours debating the motion, and that we can move on swiftly to debate the substance of the Bills.

There can be no doubt about the value of both measures. Of course, some hon. Members want to probe and discuss various aspects of the Bills. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said last Thursday, the Committee stages of the Bills—and, indeed, two other Bills that the House will consider later today—passed swiftly.

The Nuclear Safeguards Bill took one hour 48 minutes in Committee. Today, 33 amendments, four new clauses and one new schedule have been tabled. None of those amendments raises anything new, and the Government oppose them all.

The Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill took one hour 13 minutes in Committee. The Government accepted no amendments, and no Government amendments have been tabled today.

Mr. John Bercow: Unless I misheard the Parliamentary Secretary, he suggested that the Nuclear Safeguards Bill absorbed one hour 48 minutes. Will he confirm that it in fact absorbed only one hour 12 minutes?

Mr. Tipping: I cannot confirm that, but I shall look at the matter. I understand that the Nuclear Safeguards Bill took one hour and 48 minutes and the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill one hour and 13 minutes. The three new clauses and two amendments, which have been tabled by an Opposition Member, would add nothing to the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time with his characteristic courtesy. Unless I am much mistaken, or there has been a misprint, the Standing Committee sitting began at 10.30 am on 18 April and consideration concluded at 18 minutes to 12. Even by new Labour calculations, that amounts not to one hour and 48 minutes, but to one hour and 12 minutes. That is germane to our consideration of the timetable motion.

Mr. Tipping: Clearly, if the Official Report is correct—I am sure that it is—the hon. Gentleman is better at his sums than other people. I apologise to him and the House.
There are important matters that the House needs to debate this afternoon. It is regrettable that a few Opposition Members seem to be less interested in the genuine scrutiny of legislation and more interested in disrupting the progress of business, regardless of the desirability of the legislation that they want to delay. Such behaviour may not be in the interests of the whole House and the industries concerned, nor in the public interest. However, it is for those Members to justify their actions.


I do not complain, nor should they complain of the Government's desire to pass legislation. I hope that the House will approve the motion quickly.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell me where, in the Government's view, the dividing line on applying timetable motions falls? Is it where Her Majesty's Opposition are being an irritant and, therefore, have to be taught a salutary lesson or where the legislation is of such major importance that it should be dealt with in an exemplary manner, without the Opposition having recourse to what are legitimate means of opposition?

Mr. Tipping: I remind my hon. Friend of what I have just said—I do not complain and those are legitimate tactics; nor should other hon. Members complain about the Government's desire to secure their business.
The Bills are important for the industries concerned. There has been widespread concern across the House that important issues are not given sufficient time for debate. For example, last week, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) pressed strongly for a debate on House of Lords reform. Small measures such as these may be blocked, which takes a great deal of time and causes the Government difficulties in initiating bigger debates.

Mr. David Winnick: If the minority in the House has rights which are respected—I hope that that will always be the case—should not we also recognise the rights of the majority? If a small minority of Members causes lengthy delays, despite remaining perfectly in order, surely the majority has a right to put its foot down and say, "Enough is enough."

Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend may have an opportunity to put his foot down if the motion is pressed to a Division. It is a matter for the House and he will be able to express his view. I have expressed mine: a small group of Members is needlessly holding up the business of the House to the inconvenience of a great many other Members.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Why have the Government decided to consolidate what are effectively two guillotine motions into one? That denies the House the opportunity properly to discuss the motion. I should be grateful to the Minister if he would advise us why the Secretaries of State responsible for the Bills are not leading the debate. The precedent was in the 1970s when, as the Minister will recall, the relevant Secretaries of State spoke on the sections of the motion that related to their Bills and explained the necessity for a guillotine.

Mr. Tipping: I am supported by my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs. The precedents on such matters are far from clear. The hon. Gentleman asks why two Bills are being guillotined by one motion. He makes the point that there is insufficient time, but three hours have been made available to discuss the motion. I hope that the House will debate the motion quickly so that we can deal with the important matters.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The Minister is one of the most courteous Members in the House, and we all acknowledge that, but I am bound to tell him that he dealt with the motion in an exceptionally perfunctory manner. I am also bound to tell him that I think it a great pity that the Leader of the House is not here—indeed, I am sorry that she did not introduce the debate. Given that she too is a Member of impeccable courtesy, I would have expected her at the very least to be present.
We should consider the context of this debate. In last year's Queen's Speech, the Government put before us one of the heaviest legislative programmes of recent years. Since then, we have seen an attempt by them to push through non-controversial Bills as quickly as possible so that they can get the rest of their legislative programme through. In fact, they have not yet extracted themselves from a legislative quagmire of their own making.
I accept that although both the Bills we are discussing are important, they are not controversial in a party political sense; but to say that they are not controversial is not to say that they are unimportant. Many pieces of legislation put before the House are non-controversial in a party sense, but are extremely important. I do not think anyone could suggest that a Bill relating to nuclear safeguards, or, indeed, a Bill dealing with sea fishing, deals with an unimportant subject.
A number of important points were made on Second Reading of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, which ran for some time. Although the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill had a briefer Second Reading, again important points were made, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). I do not believe that the Government have answered either set of points adequately.
The trouble with the present Government—I acquit the Minister of this charge—is that they are excessively arrogant when it comes to Parliament. The purpose of Parliament is to serve by holding the Executive to account and by scrutinising legislation thoroughly. The present Government seem to be so hell bent on their legislative programme—their agenda—that they are not prepared to allow Parliament to fulfil its role properly.
We have already heard one reference to this in an intervention, but last week, in business questions, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) asked yet again—I have lost count of the number of times he and I have asked for this—for a debate on the intergovernmental conference White Paper, and for a debate on reform of the House of Lords. Most important of all in the context of what is currently happening, he asked—for the second consecutive week—for a debate on Sierra Leone.
People outside Parliament find it incomprehensible that we have so distorted our patterns and procedures—or, rather, the Government have done so—that we do not have the opportunity to debate matters that are in the headlines of every newspaper and news bulletin, at a time when British troops are engaged, albeit with impeccable skill, in one of the most delicate operations in which British troops have been engaged for a long time.

Ms Tess Kingham: Does the hon. Gentleman not concede that we would have more time for


important debates on such subjects as Sierra Leone, and other vital topics that concern our constituents, if we were not kept up all night by silly games that have very little to do with scrutinising legislation, and more to do with the Opposition's attempts to keep the Government up all night, make them tired and prevent discussion of the important issues of the day?

Sir Patrick Cormack: I read of the hon. Lady's declaration at the weekend. All I would say to her is that she has failed to understand what being a Member of Parliament is all about. She has failed to understand what she has to do in this place: she treats this as a job that should involve fixed hours, and clocking on and off. We are here as the servants of the people who sent us here, and we are expected to debate at length important issues, whether they be of a partisan nature or, as these two Bills are, of a non-partisan nature.
We would of course have made sure that the hon. Lady lost her seat at the next election, but I am sorry that she is voluntarily throwing in the towel. If people such as her treat the House as an ordinary place of work, they have fundamentally misunderstood the historic nature of the British Parliament.

Mr. Eric Forth: Is my hon. Friend aware that on Friday the House sat between the hours of 9.30 am and 2.30 pm and made law, very successfully as it turned out, yet none of the Members who are making the loudest protest about unsocial hours managed to be present?

Sir Patrick Cormack: I had better answer that rather carefully, because I was not here on Friday either. My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. I am well aware that on Fridays he regularly travels here from the far distances of Bromley. We could all learn from his parliamentary expertise.
The hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham), when she intervened, and the Parliamentary Secretary, when he introduced the debate, seemed to be suffering from a parliamentary amnesia. I well remember in the early 1970s, when we were in opposition, parliamentarians of the calibre of the late John Mendelson and the late Bob Cryer perfectly rightly and properly inconvenienced the then Conservative Government time after time, week after week. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not in his place, because he was a past master at that. I shall never forget when he kept us vastly entertained for some considerable time on a debate as to whether a by-election writ should be moved. He was properly exercising his parliamentary right to try to delay the Government of the day moving forward with legislation of which he wholeheartedly disapproved. That is a historic right of the Back Bencher, whoever the Government of the day are.

Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is always courteous. Does he realise that there is a difference between keeping us up all night on, say, the national minimum wage legislation, which is an issue of great importance to the Government and to the Opposition—I know of no Labour Member who complained about that—and keeping us all night on issues

that are not particularly controversial? A small minority of Members—not Opposition Front-Benchers—legitimately consider it their duty to keep the debate going on and on, if necessary all night.
This should no longer be a gentleman's club. If my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) has come to the view that people of her generation and gender are not able to carry out their responsibilities as a Member of Parliament as they would like to, with all respect to the hon. Gentleman I believe that that is a loss to Parliament.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I disagree. I believe very strongly that it is not the job of Parliament to adjust its procedures for the convenience of individual Members. I believe passionately in this place. I believe in this Chamber. I readily concede that the hon. Gentleman has a point when he refers to the broad-brush approach of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Mrs. Dunwoody: rose—

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Sir Patrick Cormack: May I reply to hon. Members one at a time? Then I will give way to the hon. Lady.
My right hon. Friend has been goaded beyond endurance by the cavalier manner in which the Government have treated the House over their general legislative programme. He is not the Rupert of debate, as a 19th century parliamentarian was once referred to; he is the Dick Turpin of debate—or being the American aficionado that he is, perhaps the Jesse James of debate. He wants to hold up everything in sight. He has done that for a purpose. He has perceived a Government who know only two instruments—the steamroller and the sledgehammer. He has done his best—I pay tribute to him—to underline that fact to the British people.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the hon. Gentleman remember the occasion when the present Chairman of the Liaison Committee and his very good friend, who is now in another place, held up every conceivable bit of legislation, irrespective of its worth, to ensure that the reformation of the House of Lords did not go ahead, because they had decided that what was on offer was in the interests neither of Parliament nor of anyone else?

Sir Patrick Cormack: Indeed I do, although that was just before I came into the House in 1970. It was a wholly legitimate exercise. If the Government are seeking to put through legislation that, in the view of certain Members, is not in the interests of the country or their constituents, they have every right to use every legitimate parliamentary weapon to seek to make it difficult for the Government to get their business through.
We all know that the present Government have a huge and overwhelming majority. We know that, because of that, it is inconceivable that, in the Division Lobby, we can overturn an item of Government legislation, but the hon. Lady is right. She is a consummate parliamentarian. The problem in the present House of Commons is that we have far too many Members of Parliament and not enough parliamentarians. She is right to underline not only the


historic opportunity of the Back Bencher, but the historic duty. It is the duty of a Member of Parliament, if he or she believes that what is being done is inimical to the interests of the country, to seek to use whatever legitimate device is available to stop it or to hold it up. If the debate achieves nothing else but to underline that historic right of Parliament, it will have achieved some purpose, even though it was introduced in such a brief way by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Bercow: Is my hon. Friend aware that, even if we were not debating the allocation of time motion, and instead all four hours available were devoted to the consideration of the 32 new clauses and amendments to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, it would apparently be acceptable to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) that, on average, each of them should receive consideration by the House for seven and a half minutes?

Sir Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I speak on the subject with, I hope, reasonable credentials. I well remember walking out of a debate on the guillotine during the Conservative Administration because I felt that not enough time was being given to a very important Bill. On a number of occasions, I refused to support a guillotine brought in by my own Government. One must use that weapon with extreme care. The current issue of "Erskine May" says that guillotine motions
may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business, and the rights of debate.
That is what it is all about. It is the judgment of the Government in resorting to the guillotine that we question today.
I know that "programming" is a word that is anathema to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but I think that even he would concede that there is perhaps a case, with certain non-controversial but important measures, perhaps to give some regard to that. However, just for the point of the argument, he is an absolutist. In a sense, he is the—what colour is his tie today? He is the technicolour incorruptible of this place. I cannot call him the sea-green incorruptible. [Interruption.] He is certainly not a Shi'ite, as the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs says from a sedentary position.
Putting on one side for a moment my right hon. Friend's extremely purist view, I should say that there is a case for programming certain measures. However, in this case, the Government did not attempt to come and say, "Should we programme these particular measures so that they receive adequate and proper discussion?" Indeed, on various occasions—we have the same tomorrow—the Government have scheduled two Bills for Second Reading on a single day. I believe that that is just not the way in which Parliament should be treated.

Mr. Shepherd: I am very interested in the argument that my hon. Friend is developing, not least because he played a part in that extraordinary day when the then Labour Government proposed five guillotines in one day. In this Parliament, however, the Government—with a little support from the official and the unofficial Opposition Front Benchers—have introduced about

40 guillotines. Use of the guillotine is now not only a ritual reminder of the Government's importance, but a deliberate attempt to manage the business of the House and to deny freedom of speech to many Back Benchers on both sides of the House.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I tell my hon. Friend that, as "Erskine May" has it, the Opposition have most certainly not connived at 40 guillotines; that is not right. What we have had is some agreed programmes. Regardless of who is in government, one has to balance the programme. Although the Government are in office now, potentially they are tomorrow's Opposition. A quite good political maxim is, "Do not do to others what you would not have done to yourself."
It is a matter of getting the balance right. I believe that, in this Parliament and in this matter, the balance has not been got right. The Government have treated Parliament with some disdain—as demonstrated in the number of announcements that they have made not to the House but outside it, before hon. Members have been told. In a sense, these guillotines show the ultimate disdain.

Mr. Keith Darvill: The hon. Gentleman mentioned balance. However, when considering that balance, should not Back Benchers take into account, among other things, the number of amendments tabled to a Bill in Committee and the length of the Committee's consideration of that Bill? If the Committee has not examined legislation in great detail, does that not indicate how many important issues need to be addressed in the legislation?

Sir Patrick Cormack: With genuine respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the situation. Every amendment that is selected for consideration in Committee is selected by the Chairman of that Committee. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and I have been joint Chairmen of a number of Standing Committees. I think it is true to say that at the beginning of this Parliament, I had served on the panel of Chairmen longer than any other Opposition Member. The fact is that Chairmen select carefully, with regard to what is relevant, and that they are advised at every point by the Clerks.
Sometimes, it is appropriate that an amendment should be debated not so much in Committee, but on Report—on the Floor of the House—where every hon. Member will have the opportunity to attend. On Report, it is again a matter—as you will know all too well, Madam Speaker—of a proper selection of amendments; nothing is selected that is out of order. Therefore, everything that appears on the Order Paper and is selected for debate is proper, relevant and can be—indeed, should be—debated.
It is a matter of—I keep coming back to this word—balance. I believe that the Government have the balance wrong, and that, in the process, they have dealt a very real blow to the whole foundation of parliamentary representative democracy.

Mr. David Maclean: Before my hon. Friend concludes his remarks, I hope that he will reflect once again on the point made by the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) and the preposterous notion that he seemed to be proposing to the House—that


because a Committee of 12, 18 or 24 colleagues carefully considered a matter, there is no need for the other 630 colleagues who had not been on the Committee to consider it at all. That would make a mockery of Report and disallow all the rest of us from properly contributing to parliamentary debate and to Bills as they are passed by the House.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Of course; that is the point that I was seeking to make. Report stage is the one occasion when all hon. Members have the opportunity not just to attend—they can turn up and listen to the proceedings in Committee—but to take part.
Very often, the majority of amendments come not from the Back Benches or from the Opposition, but from the Government—and this Government have been as guilty of that as any that I can remember in my time here. Sometimes that is commendable, because it means that the Government have listened to the arguments, conceded a point and brought forward amendments on Report to remedy a situation. That has happened during this Parliament, but only on two or three Bills. For the most part, the Government amendments have been tabled to cover up their own technical ineptitude—and in some cases because of a misreading of the situation that beggars belief. I need only utter the two words "Utilities Bill" without expanding on that—and therefore being rebuked by you, Madam Speaker—to illustrate my point.
I ask the Minister—if he will be kind enough to listen—to talk to the Leader of the House and tell her that we regard her as our Leader of the House. Her job transcends the party political. Of course she is an important member of the Cabinet and has a party political role—no sensible Member of Parliament would dispute that for half a minute—but she also has a parliamentary role second in importance only to the supreme parliamentary role of Madam Speaker.
The Leader of the House is actively involved in the business of the House. It is not for Madam Speaker to say whether a Minister shall make a statement, as she has so often said. However, the Leader of the House has the regulation and control of Government business. We are suffering from the Government's disdainful and, on occasions, contemptuous approach to Parliament. We are not allowed time to debate issues of great importance, because the legislative programme crowds out everything else. It is so enormous that Members of Parliament do not have an opportunity adequately to digest, let alone debate, the measures that are put before us. Parliament's role is being unbalanced by the Executive. That is an extremely important point.
I accept that the inimitable behaviour of my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is sometimes exasperating for all concerned. I remember once quoting to them Richter's famous words to the third flute:
Your damned nonsense can I stand twice or once, hut sometimes always, by God, never.
However, they are performing a service to Parliament and I pay an unreserved and unqualified tribute to that. They see a Parliament that is being railroaded by the Government. On the precept that was so very well enunciated by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich,

they are saying that they are not going to put up with it. In doing so, they have entered into the long and honourable lineage of fiercely independent, sometimes bloody-minded, true servants of Parliament in whose debt we all stand.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend share the sentiment behind the words of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who said to me two years before the last general election that when the Government get themselves into a hole, they legislate too much? Would it not be good advice to this Government not only to slow down the legislative process, but to stop it altogether?

Sir Patrick Cormack: It would be a good thing if the Government rationed the number of Bills that they placed before this House. I hope that, at the next general election—at which I am confident the Government and Opposition parties will be transposed—we will make a promise that is often made to the electorate: that there will be less legislation, not more. I hope that that is a promise that we then fulfil. We need legislation that is carefully considered and drafted, and legislation to which every hon. Member has the opportunity to contribute. That cannot be done if we submerge Parliament in a vast number of Bills which there is not enough time for hon. Members to digest, let alone debate.
The Government have their own legislative ineptitude to thank for the motion. They are doing a scant service to the Parliament they would pretend to honour in tabling the motion. I hope that when we come to vote, my right hon. and hon. Friends will all resolutely vote against it.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: When the last election was called, I desperately wanted Labour to win because I felt that previous Governments over a period of about 20 years had increasingly behaved as if Parliament were not relevant to the government of the country. For a long time, we had had people in charge who no longer understood the role of Members of Parliament, and were not prepared to consider in detail either legislation affecting ordinary people or the implications of what they were doing.
I believed that my Government would be different. I believed that they would insist on parliamentary matters being dealt with seriously. Answers to parliamentary questions, even awkward ones, would be honest and straightforward. I believed that the parliamentary timetable would be organised in such a way that we would see a new era of responsibility and the flowering of the important role that Parliaments have played in the UK almost since the time of the Anglo-Saxons.
When I see an Order Paper with a timetable motion—for two Bills, not one—I am disappointed in terms of my hopes for the incoming Government. It is my duty to say these things, which will not make me popular on this side of the House. Nor will I be appreciated by many new Members of Parliament, who will only too readily write off the views of anyone who does not believe that our role in Parliament is to be a salaried employee of particular parties, answerable not to those who send us here and perhaps not even, in a wider sense, to the constituencies that are, to me, the final and most important arbiter of my role.
I am deeply saddened by the fact that, yet again, a timetable motion has been tabled. A dangerous idea is growing that if we were somehow to reorganise the hours of Parliament and go home at 5 pm—like well brought up office personnel—and if we were not to sit through the night, we would produce better legislation. We would be able to round off in simple and sonorous terms those legal opinions that are to be included in legislation. That is not the case.
Parliament has always existed to express the views of ordinary men and women, although it has at times been manipulated by those in government or in power. Sometimes it ignores those views or translates them in a way that many of us find unacceptable. Sometimes Parliament believes that it has such God-given rights that it can override the views of those who have a vote and a say in how people get here. In reality, Parliament—although it took a considerable time before it admitted women—has historically acted to represent the peoples of this country and, fundamentally, has protected the essential aspects of democracy.
I hope that the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) will forgive me if I say that neither of them are automatically high on the list of people whom I love dearly. Nevertheless, what they are doing and have done is not unique. Indeed, they are not even as efficient as some of my colleagues have been in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) used often to be given instructions by previous Labour Whips to keep business going for as long as possible to cause the maximum difficulty.
I also remember my late friend John Golding, the former Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, making the longest recorded speech in modern parliamentary history on a telecommunications Bill, because he believed that what was being offered to the House was inadequate and wrong. He chose to use the methods of Parliament to try to change that. In doing so, he used devices that would have seemed pathetically complicated to people outside. They could have been described as little boys' games, but they were based on an understanding of the procedures of the House of Commons and an ability to use those procedures to have an effect on the progress of legislation.
Such actions are legitimate, although they may be irritating. I do not particularly want to be here in the middle of the night. In fact, it occurred to me the other day that when I first entered the House, I was told that I should stay up all night because I was part of the payroll vote. Now I am told that I have to stay up all night because I am not part of the payroll vote. I cannot understand what happened in the interim when I got it all wrong.
The growing use of timetable motions is a retrograde step, and I say that no matter who introduces them. I do not even understand why timetable motions are necessary on the Bills that we are considering today. However, I am concerned by the idea that somehow Parliament can be organised, like local authorities, into short days or a shorter week. Parliament cannot be organised into a nice, neat tidy bundle so that the Executive take decisions, tell Parliament what they have decided and produce Bills that, even if they are wrong, can be presented as a package and pushed through, because no one any longer alters a word of them. Such an approach is dangerous and depressing.
It is also depressing—as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) pointed out—that senior members of the Government are not even prepared to come to the House and argue the case. They could at least have the decency to tell us why we must accept this motion. All Members of Parliament understand that we got here with the support of party politicians and need to defend particular party political views, but we also have a duty to ordinary men and women who have let this Parliament grow up over 900 years because they thought that if they could hear their views expressed here by the Members whom they elected, they were defending democracy.
Parliament is not a rubber stamp for the arrangements of Executives or of Front Benchers. There have been occasions when it has suited Opposition Front Benchers to make arrangements with the Government, and I understand why that happens. Whips Offices must manage business, but we should not forget that there is something deeper about what we do here than getting the House's business on the statute book. That means that we cannot behave as if we are councillors. We will not be able to maintain a life in which our families can see us whenever they want. I had three children when I first entered the House, aged 12, 10 and 8. I therefore know what tremendous costs family life has to bear. That is the same for males and females. This is a brutal place. It destroys more people than it creates. Those of us who come here do so because we believe that democracy and the expression of the views of ordinary voters are of fundamental importance.
The House has withstood the arrogance of previous Prime Ministers. It has withstood the arrangements of elite groups who think that they can get what they want merely by dictating to Parliament. It can withstand the business arrangements of the Front-Bench Members of both large parties, who think it convenient not to allow people to get in the way of what they want. If ever those groups succeed in getting what they want, we shall know that Parliament no longer represents the interests of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She is a formidable opponent, and one suspects that she could be a dangerous friend as well.
Liberal Democrat Members do not support the motion. We think that the Government have lost their nerve to some extent by requiring the House to consider two timetable motions and four Bills in one day. As has been boasted about and admitted in the House today, the Government have suffered some provocation, but Governments should not lose their temper when facing provocation from those they do not like. Governments with commanding majorities in the House should show responsibility, whereas Opposition parties are entitled to show irresponsibility on occasion. It is the job of Parliament to contain that diversity, and it is the job of Opposition Members to do their best to resist what the Government want to achieve.
I must say, however, that it is hard to support every detail of what the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) have been trying to do. I have had the sometimes doubtful privilege of sitting through many


contributions from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst in this House. It is occasionally hard to see how legislation is improved by that process, or how amendments tabled by those right hon. Gentlemen would allow it to emerge from the process in better shape.

Mr. Maclean: I invite the hon. Gentleman to check the Hansard report of last week's debate on the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. The spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), commented on the new provisions on compensation for farmers and other matters that the Government had built into the Bill. Those issues were raised by me and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), among others, a year before, when the original Bill on fur farming was before the House. We objected to that Bill, and obstructed its progress, because it lacked those provisions. The Government added them to this year's Bill because of the action that we took—a fact that won the praise of some Liberal Democrat Members.

Mr. Stunell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but the Order Paper states that this motion refers to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill and the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill. Moreover, given enough time, a group of monkeys will type the collected works of Shakespeare, so sooner or later any hon. Member might come up with an amendment that would improve a measure. By no means do I discount the process of scrutiny by the House, but it might be carried out more effectively and efficiently. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I support his right to act as he chooses. I am simply drawing to the House's attention the factors that I consider render the Government's reaction wrong.

Mr. Bercow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the course of five hours' debate on the Bill's Second Reading on 10 April, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I asked innumerable questions? Is he further aware that the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs was denied the opportunity of a reply to that debate, because the rug was pulled out from under his feet by the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that on 18 April the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) aired concerns in Committee to which he required a response? In those circumstances, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if the Minister indicated whether he intends to respond to the debate on the new clauses and amendments this afternoon?

Mr. Stunell: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I would simply say that even the Secretary of State should be able to squeeze that in during the course of a four-hour debate. Perhaps he needs longer, but four hours seem a reasonable time in which to do so.
I stress that I am not supporting the timetable motion. I accept, as a given, that the process of debate is beneficial to legislation. Ministers should be held to account and we expect viable, comprehensible and comprehensive answers to issues raised by Opposition Members and Government Back Benchers. That is not in dispute.

I might question whether that is the most effective way for contributions to be made, but that is not the essence of my remarks.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich made some powerful points. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members who were not in the Chamber to hear the hon. Lady's speech will take the trouble to read it in Hansard. She warned of the risk of increasing Government dictatorship over the House. She referred eloquently to the House's 900-year history. The first 800 years may not have gone according to Labour Members' wishes but, depending on the culture of the times, the House has been a powerful way of controlling the Executive for a long time. Hardly anyone would dispute that it has become less effective, however. The reasons for that are not all connected with the introduction of too many guillotine motions. They include the introduction of a very strong party structure and, in the past century, almost continuous universal majority party rule of Parliament and the Executive.
The hon. Lady might want to reflect on whether her views give a complete picture of the situation when it comes to seemingly relishing the masochistic aspect of Parliament. The idea is that one should expect to start work at 2.30 in the afternoon and work until 2.30 in the morning. If not, one could not be said to be qualified for Parliament. I put it to the hon. Lady that that is not a complete picture.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I agree absolutely. That is why the Committees of the House do not start at half-past two in the afternoon. That is why Select Committees frequently meet at different times. Members of Parliament take part in debates elsewhere in the House—in Westminster Hall, in the Committee Rooms and in Standing Committees. The idea that the House starts work at half-past two in the afternoon may be propagated generally, but it is not accurate.

Mr. Stunell: I thank the hon. Lady for that confirmation of her point of view. I am what is generally described as an owl, rather than a lark, and it suits me very well to be up at 2.30 in the morning. I look forward to being kept up by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border in future. However, although such a course looks convincing in the statistics, it is not the best way of employing Members of the House in holding the Government to account.
I have made the point repeatedly in the debate—and I shall continue to make it outside the Chamber—that imposing a guillotine motion is not the response that a mature and responsible Government should make to the deficiencies in the running of this place. If there are deficiencies in the direction of there being too great a control of the House by the Executive, the solution is not to increase that control by the imposition of guillotines.

Mr. Fabricant: I am finding the hon. Gentleman's argument somewhat confused. What is he arguing for as a way of holding the Government to account—a Government who have a larger majority than there are Conservative Members? What other mechanisms would he propose?

Mr. Stunell: I am in danger of being led out of order. I could mention many mechanisms. One would be a


Parliament that represented the people by the introduction of proportional representation. Another would be the extension of pre-legislative scrutiny, as recommended to the House. Yet another would be the implementation of a proper procedure for having our business organised throughout the year as well as throughout the week. Those are all matters on which I have gone on the record, as has my party, and we shall continue to do so. However, there are Conservative Members who prefer to continue with the old techniques, which did not prevent the poll tax or the Child Support Agency. Similarly, they did not rescue Parliament from gaining a reputation for passing bad law too often.

Mr. Owen Paterson: What is the Liberal definition of a proper procedure?

Mr. Stunell: I can define what the procedure is according to Liberal Democrats. I cannot speak for anybody else. I and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) have submitted a paper, which I trust will be published in the proceedings of the Modernisation Committee. It is being considered almost as we speak. Perhaps those are matters for another debate.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stunell: I am happy to follow this line but I am not sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how far I should stray from the terms of the motion.

Mr. Bercow: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is wallowing in a sea of obfuscation. I suspect that most Opposition Members believe that the country suffers from over-government. As we are considering the allocation of time for consideration of legislation, will the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, tell the House whether he agrees with the Conservative Opposition that it is objectionable in principle that the Government should be allowed to ram through the House in one parliamentary day no fewer than four Bills?

Mr. Stunell: I started by saying yes to that question, and I will say it again—yes. To have two guillotine motions in respect of four Bills in one day is a sign of a Government who have lost their nerve and are responding immaturely to provocation. I do not know whether I can make myself any plainer than that. That is our view.
There is a better organised and more formal approach. The business of the House should be planned in a much better way, and we have definite proposals that would enable that to be done. Sadly, they are not on the Order Paper.
I strongly urge the Government and the official Opposition to take notice of the public's views of the way in which the House conducts itself. I want them both to take account of the true quality of the outputs of the House. I think that Members on both sides of the House share the view, and the frustration, that it is not effective at holding the Government to account. It does not pass high-quality legislation and it does not allow the best form of representation of the people who elected its Members. That is a greater cause for concern than the motion.
The proposed guillotine does not have the support of Liberal Democrats. I hope that we shall reject it and proceed to consider other business.

Mr. David Winnick: I apologise in advance for having to leave this debate. I am a member of a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation and, if I do not attend it at some point. I shall doubtless be guillotined by my Whips. [Interruption.] Yes, no doubt the Opposition would greatly miss me.
A charge of arrogance has been made against the Government. I have the same respect for the House of Commons as I had when I first entered the House many years ago. The House is a place for debate, and even, sometimes, for delaying matters. I accept the rights of the Opposition. I spent 18 years on the Opposition Benches, and often heard Government spokesmen introducing guillotines by saying that they were absolutely necessary. This is no unique occasion on which a wicked Government are moving a guillotine. Successive Governments have reached the view that guillotines are necessary.
As I look across the House, the only Conservative Member whom I can see who, under the previous Government, and to his credit, opposed all—at least, almost all; he certainly gave the impression that he did—guillotine motions is the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I cannot recall any other Conservative Member present being so strenuously opposed to guillotines when he sat on the Government Benches.
Minorities—even a minority within a minority—have rights and privileges. I do not say that it would be wrong to prevent such Members from prolonging proceedings. It is part of the House of Commons that they should be able to do so, and I have never argued otherwise. However, the time must come—as it has now—when the rights of the majority must also be considered. If that is not so, one or two Members on the Opposition Benches may prolong proceedings by speaking endlessly on a certain measure—within the rules of order, no doubt, and sometimes with the help of colleagues who rise to say, "Does my hon. Friend agree with me?"
All that may be perfectly in order, but the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)—who does not take part in such proceedings—cannot really be telling the House that the Government of the day should never respond by bringing in a timetable motion. Should it be that one or two Members—half a dozen at the most—can delay proceedings hour after hour, well into the night, leaving a large majority of Members powerless to act? I cannot accept that. The hon. Gentleman knows better than anyone the history of guillotine motions. They resulted from events in the 19th century, when Irish Members—for good reasons, I believe—delayed the House, and there was no machinery with which the House could respond. Thus was the first guillotine motion introduced, but they have since been used on many occasions by successive Governments.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I was not here in the 1880s. He knows full well that I was arguing that the Government are going in for overkill and distorting the balance of parliamentary priorities. They have so submerged Parliament in legislation that we have reached the pass that we have come to. If he casts his


mind back, the hon. Gentleman should know that I have opposed guillotines irrespective of which party has been in Government.

Mr. Winnick: I have been here for many years, but cannot claim to have been here in the 19th century. I do not want to wish to claim longer membership than the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). If the hon. Member for South Staffordshire opposed guillotine motions from his own side, I am glad to hear that he joined the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills in doing so.
In a previous Parliament, the Jopling Committee looked into the hours of the House. It was chaired by a former Tory Minister and Chief Whip, and among its recommendations about our hours it argued that we should, in the main, not sit beyond 10 o'clock. Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), argue that we must not change our ways and that it would be quite wrong to do so; why then were the conclusions of the Jopling Committee accepted almost unanimously? Despite that, during this Parliament, we have sat after 10 o'clock more often than previously.
I hear the point made by some hon. Members that we are not really in a working place, but I disagree.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winnick: No, because I shall keep my remarks brief.
This is a working place and it changes—as it has done over centuries. There is no reason why, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) should be forced to conclude that it is impossible for her to combine her domestic responsibilities with her parliamentary duties. Although it is unlikely that we shall sit from 9 to 5 o'clock—for all sorts of reasons—and I have never advocated anything of the kind, we must realise that there are people who could make a contribution to the House of Commons, but who have domestic responsibilities. They have a private life—and why not? Surely we are not saying that we cannot adjust—that we are so inflexible that it is not possible for us to change our ways at all.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Winnick: I shall not give way, because I want to conclude.
I am willing to sit through the night on important issues. We can all decide for ourselves what is important—I gave the national minimum wage as one illustration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich mentioned, I was in the Chamber when Michael Foot and Enoch Powell—for differing reasons—opposed changes to the House of Lords. Those were fundamental issues—of the greatest importance. I do not remember that Labour Members were complaining in the Tea Room then, because they understood what was involved.
However, why should we stay here hour after hour to discuss relatively non-controversial issues? We know that such matters are not of the greatest importance—although

I do not want to minimise their importance. Why should we stay here through the night, simply because one or two Opposition Members believe that they are making a contribution for their party? As I said, they have a perfect right to try to do so, but surely we too have a right to say that enough is enough, and that we want to conclude the debate and move on to other business.
People outside—our constituents—find it impossible to understand why we sit here all night. They say, in effect, "Are you not too tired? Can you really pass important Bills that affect the lives of ordinary people by debating at 2, 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning? Why don't you have more sensible hours?" That is the view of the country. Although it may be a simplistic approach—

Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winnick: No.
The guillotine motion is perfectly justified. We have a right to proceed with our business. I see no reason why we should not do so tonight.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: For many Members of the House the matter is not merely one of administrative convenience, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) seems to suggest. It is one of principle—as was reflected in the speech made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
The matter touches on the very purposes and functions of the House. Given the long parliamentary career of the hon. Member for Walsall, North, he will recall the processes whereby guillotines were introduced. During the 1945–51 Labour Government, there were only five guillotines. If the two motions are passed today, about 40 Bills will have been guillotined in less than three years.

Mr. Tipping: Perhaps I could correct the hon. Gentleman—as his hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) tried to do earlier. If the guillotine motions are passed, the number will be 19—not 40.

Mr. Shepherd: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman look both at the Library briefing on guillotine motions and at the Sessional Orders. I think that the total number was 36 at the last count. The motions apply to four Bills; I am talking about the number of guillotined Bills.
In fact, the number of guillotine motions is higher than the number of Bills guillotined because sometimes a Bill requires a second, or even a third, guillotine motion—perhaps on Lords amendments or in Committee. However, the degrading of our processes in respect of such motions means that we no longer handle them with the respect that the House once expected.
I notice that the motion on the Order Paper is in the name of the Leader of the House, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. If the Parliamentary Secretary considers the five guillotine motions that were moved by Michael Foot in the mid-1970s, he will find that Secretaries of State themselves led the debate and explained why the motions were necessary.
The Government no longer have the courtesy to field the Minister responsible for the Bill so that he can tell the House why the process of debate has broken down to such an extent that they have to use a guillotine to expedite business. The Parliamentary Secretary said the fact that one Bill was discussed for one hour and 20 minutes and another for one hour and 13 minutes in Committee was sufficient. He therefore suggested that he did not have to explain why it was necessary to impose guillotine motions on them.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend has considerable and honourable experience of such matters. Can he recall any other motion that imposed a guillotine on a Bill's Report stage before that stage had even begun and after a Bill had received such little consideration in Committee?

Mr. Shepherd: My right hon. Friend poses a question that I am unable to answer. Guillotines have become fashionable since the war and there have been many of them. Therefore, I regret to say that there is probably a precedent.

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's justification—which was supported by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—is especially bizarre given that the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, did not reply on 10 April to the Second Reading debate on the Nuclear Safeguards Bill and given that no fewer than 33 amendments have been tabled for Report?

Mr. Shepherd: I agree with my hon. Friend. The very essence of a guillotine is to deny the opportunity for debate or to give rise to the possibility that Members might not be able to speak on matters that they think are germane or important. I reflect on the one hour 12 minutes and the one hour 13 minutes that were spent on the Bills in Committee and recall my experience of sitting on Committees that considered Bills which were eventually subject to a guillotine. I need only mention the Telecommunications Act 1984, which privatised BT. It spent 180 hours in Committee before the Government felt able to bring the most draconian parliamentary practice to bear on it.
Let us be clear in our minds: there has been a degradation. As I said, 40 Bills—and probably well over 50 guillotine motions—have been exercised by the Government in a little over three years. Mrs. Thatcher's Government were much attacked for their use of the guillotine, but they introduced about 60 guillotine motions in 11 years. In one Parliament under this Government, the drumbeat of the guillotine has been used to limit freedom of expression.
When the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich spoke, she referred to the essential purpose of the House. It has been said often enough that we represent defined areas—our constituencies—and we are not sent here to govern because that is the role of the Executive. Their tolerance and understanding of the balance of arguments make up what I call the due process of Parliament.
Any Member, however junior and whether the hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham), has a right to stand up and speak on matters that affect his or her

constituency. There are 659 of us and there is a heavy legislative programme. However, if the Government try to put a quart into a pint pot, something will have to give. The Government say that the right to freedom of speech and expression must therefore give, not that we should curtail in any way the important measures before the House. That is the essence of the matter, which, of course, is the most flagrant assertion of the strength and power of an Executive over their party and the expression of the majority over the minority.
The House always used to be careful about that balance. It is not fashionable to discuss that and Liberal Democrat Members are in a muddle about whether timetables should be agreed only by Front-Bench Members. I did not know whether the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, was coming or going in his remarkable contribution, but he veered towards saying that the measure is bad because, for some arcane reason, it denies freedom of expression and speech.
We never know how the pattern of Bills will run, which makes it difficult to fix timetables and guillotines.

Mr. Stunell: rose—

Mr. Shepherd: I shall finish this theme while it is in my head. On our Front Bench is an honourable opponent of the poll tax. Many in the House came to realise how profoundly wrong was the principle behind that tax during the patient, lengthy exposition of the detail of the Bill introducing it. Indeed, that was a purpose of the process of debate. This Government, however, do not even want that process, which, after all, lets the steam out of the kettle.
I was profoundly concerned when Nicholas Ridley announced the principle of the Bill introducing the poll tax and asked why a dustman should pay less than a duke. During the passage of the Bill, the argument moved on to the question of why everyone should not pay a little. When a Bill's principles shift so radically, one knows that it is on uncertain ground.
The Government are in difficulties, as they have introduced several contentious Bills in this Session. I do not understand why they must resort to guillotines, when the Attlee Government, the most remarkable Labour Government in my lifetime—I am now 58—who perhaps transformed the second half of the 20th century in a way previously unknown to the people of this country, needed only five guillotines. In their first year in office, that Government passed 72 pieces of legislation.
Perhaps we have changed, as in their first year—the first year in office is always slightly longer than the following years—the present Government introduced only 52 Bills, which is, none the less, a considerable number. The House must digest the scale of that burden. There is now a regular drumbeat here, as the Government guillotine an average of 13 or 14 Bills every year. As a result, we are now seeing new management of the House, in which the Executive effectively do away with our role as Back Benchers, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said most eloquently. Now, there is not even a guillotine motion for every Bill, as they have been consolidated.
I am always fearful about making suggestions to the House: the good ones are rejected and the bad ones—which I make ironically—seem to be accepted. I responded to


arguments about why I should not speak against the Maastricht Bill by saying that the Whips were searching for a power of attorney. They require Members of Parliament to sign over a power of attorney on first coming to the House, so that the Whips may exercise the vote themselves. The guillotine motions give rise to the following question: why should not the guillotine motion be that all future Bills will be disposed of within one minute or—let us be generous—one hour of the Bill's commencement? After all, it is within the power of the majority in the House to pass such a motion. That could even be the subject of a Bill, if the majority wished. What would our role be? We could all stand up on points of order to the Speaker, but the House would have passed the motion into Standing Orders. It would be among the rules of the House.
I hope that the Government will detect the mocking tone in which I make the suggestion, and will not seize upon it to meet the objections of the hon. Member for Gloucester, who wants—one cannot call it a more orderly disposal of business—an "off with your head" approach to legislation.
I know that those on the Front Benches sometimes connive. That is why we have what are called agreed timetable motions, but they are still guillotines. Their purpose is still to limit the opportunity for debate. That may be agreed, or imposed by a majority, as it clearly is in this case.
I remember the summoning of Parliament during a summer recess, when hon. Members on all three Front Benches had signed up to new prevention of terrorism legislation. The Liberal Democrats—God bless them, as I have commented before—had second thoughts on the very Floor of the House, and withdrew their name from the motion, because they had begun to reflect on its effect. That was an example of intelligence applied to a matter before the House.
The trouble with Front-Bench agreements—this applies to every hon. Member—is that we are not all party to them. We do not necessarily know that anything has been cooked up. I knew nothing about the matter until last Thursday. There was a change of business, and I saw no reason why that should pose any difficulty for the House, yet we are faced with two motions disposing of four Bills. It is wrong, and the Government know that. All those who were here in past times know that it is wrong.
I ask hon. Members to reflect on this: why does the Library's descriptive note on the guillotine, which will no doubt be excised in due course, refer to it as the most draconian aspect of parliamentary procedure? No one reflects on that. The House knows that in order to divert the parliamentary Labour party from a re-arrangement of hours, we are considering the guillotine. Goodness knows why, as the guillotine is an option of majority. It is regularly imposed.

Mr. Winnick: Is the hon. Gentleman saying, in effect, that if matters are delayed considerably because some hon. Members exercise their right and continue to oppose a measure or a number of measures for hours on end, the House should have no protection whatever?

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I mentioned the first British Telecom Bill, which was

discussed for 170 hours in Committee. Where there is wilful delay over many hours or days, I recognise that the House may want to resolve the matter by the imposition of a time limit. I have seen that all my parliamentary life. That is not the point at issue.
We are presented with the justification for the guillotine on two Bills because they were, respectively, one hour and 12 minutes in Committee and one hour and 13, or 30, minutes in Committee. I intend no disservice to the Minister whose unpleasant duty it is to try to make sense of the appalling motion before us, when I ask why, as a courtesy to the House, members of the Cabinet are not present to justify it.
This is not a matter of formality; it is a profound matter of principle. The House can be exasperated and, at that point, do something about deliberate delay, but there is no evidence of that in the 40 Bills to which I referred. The House is well aware that guillotines are now being imposed on constitutional matters.
I see that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), who is a Member of the Scottish Parliament, is present. He knows that part of the Scotland Act 1998 was guillotined. The Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Greater London Authority Act 1999 were also guillotined. There are no longer any frontiers. The motion proves that precedent is now on the side of the guillotine, which is the weapon not of Back Benchers, but of the Executive. It is their assertion of absolute control over the House.
The answer lies in ourselves. We made the point when considering the Freedom of Information Bill, and we shall make it again. The procedure is wrong and it is employed almost ritualistically. The new Labour Government have become fond of telling the House that opposition to such matters is ritualistic; it is not. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich pointed out, it is at the heart of our purpose and our being here.

Mr. Doug Henderson: I participate in the debate with some reluctance. The Government will be pleased to know that I support them. I would not speak in the debate if I believed that, if I did not speak, we would discuss the substance of the issues, or we could prevent some of the marauders in the Conservative party from taking up more time. However, by participating, I can say what I believe should happen.
I have been here for 13 years. Some hon. Members have asked about the extent to which newer hon. Members understand parliamentary matters and should listen to those who have been here a little longer. I listen to those who have been here longer than me—I always listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who made several points. She believes with great passion that we should go in a specific direction. I cannot agree with her. I do not agree with her comments today and I did not agree with those sentiments 13 years ago.
My first job in this place was serving on a Standing Committee that considered a measure to enable privatisation of the water industry. It contained approximately six clauses. In the middle of October, the Labour Chief Whip told us, "Just keep it going till February." That was supposed to be a method of disposing effectively of an important measure. We kept a Bill of six


clauses going until February. Once, I spoke for two hours 20 minutes on whether one could better consult the public on privatisation at St. James' Park or Roker Park. I am confident that if I had brought Hartlepool's ground into the equation, I could have sustained the speech for a bit longer. I have therefore served my time as a marauder. Several colleagues in the Chamber have fulfilled that role recently. I know the game, but I do not believe that it enhances democracy or the reputation of Parliament.
I am not totally uncritical of the Government. They have probably introduced too much legislation. I realise that they do not want to listen to my messages; nevertheless, my message to them would be to be more selective. The punters in my constituency do not understand 50 Bills. However, they might get a grip on three or four important measures, such as the minimum wage, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred earlier. The Government should be a little more selective in introducing measures. If they introduce too much legislation, they bring on themselves some of the tensions that we are all currently experiencing.
However, I do not blame the Government entirely, or the marauders on the Opposition Benches. The right hon. Gentlemen from Scottish backgrounds will know that I call them sleekit marauders who operate only at night, but I do not blame them because they are only taking advantage of the parliamentary procedures available to any Member or small group of Members who wish to hold the rest of the House to ransom.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way as he referred to me and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). He may not be aware that my right hon. Friend and I were here on Friday when two excellent Bills made progress. The House sits on many Fridays. Regrettably, few other Members attended other than my right hon. Friend and myself, who were here doing our duty. Most of the Lady Members who complain bitterly about the alleged anti-social hours of the House did not attend, but the House sat between 9.30 am and 3 pm on Friday, and was very thinly attended.

Mr. Henderson: I usually like to hear the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, but he makes one of those ingenious arguments that one used to hear at Glasgow university, which he attended. Some points sound very much like those made in a debating society; they are not related to the real issues that affect this country and our constituents. I do not blame him, other Conservative Members or the Government; I blame the system, which needs reform. Whatever a Government's colour, they will face more and more demands to legislate and regulate to protect the public and their human rights, which the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) thinks very important.

Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Henderson: In a little while.
There will be such pressures and we must design a system that allows the Government to set priorities and Members to comment on them in the House. The Government's programme must be accountable, but a

distinction has to be drawn in parliamentary procedures between important issues, such as armed forces reform or major economic or social security changes, and the role of ice-cream salesmen in a royal park. That is my argument with the current system. We in the House are all far too conservative; we must consider reforms that would make the House efficient and effective.

Mr. Paterson: rose—

Ms Kingham: rose—

Mr. Henderson: I shall give way in a second.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) is a very able Back Bencher and when I was a Minister she asked me one of the hardest questions that I ever had to deal with in a Standing Committee. Contrary to some of the points that have been made by Opposition Members, she asks good questions and is interested in the real issues. It pains me that younger people with family commitments are not able to fulfil them and still make the impact in the House that they could. That is a tragedy. They could make an impact in industry and commerce even if they had family commitments because they are more realistic about, and tolerant of, the family. We preach about family values in the House, but it is the most family unfriendly institution that I have ever known.

Ms Kingham: Several issues need to be addressed. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, some Members want the House to work from 9 to 5, as in any other job. Those of us who criticise the current system are not saying that; we do not mind working incredibly long hours. When I was involved in international development, I always worked long hours, went overseas at the drop of a hat and worked at 3 or 4 in the morning. That is not a problem—when it is worth while. However, many of us feel that it is difficult to do a good job for our constituents when we have to sit up all night or are called in at the whim of a few others to take part in such silly activities. That does our constituents no credit and involves putting off appointments to the next day or rejigging them completely, which causes unpredictability—we never know where we are. Those are the real issues.
Comments have been made about some of us not attending. I have been away for four months having twins. I am terribly sorry, but I cannot leave them at the drop of a hat. This should be a modern Parliament that can accommodate women Members having children as well as serving their constituents.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those points. She has brought home far better than I could the extent of the pressures that not only she but others, male and female—although I think the pressures are greater on females than they are on any male—experience in this institution. I think that when reforms come, as they will, hers will prove to have been a major contribution, and I hope that, if she does not stand at the next election, we shall see her back here when her family grows up a bit.

Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman please answer the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)? He was here


from 9 am until 2.30 pm on Friday; I was here for the later stages of the debate. As for the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who complained during business questions, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), who is not here today, and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham), who is leaving the House in a great blaze of publicity, none of them were here. If they will not turn up between 9 am and 2.30 pm, when will they turn up?

Mr. Henderson: That is a schoolboy debating point, and I shall not waste time on it. The debate is about the House facing up to its responsibilities, and about whether it is prepared to introduce real measures that will reform it.
I do not normally take part in debates of this kind, but I feel compelled to do so on this occasion because I think that the House is bringing itself into great discredit. There is enormous cynicism among Members of Parliament about the purpose of this place, and that cynicism is being transmitted to the public. If anyone doubts me, he or she should come to Newcastle with me on Friday and ask those who visit my surgeries, or whose community centres I visit, what they think. They will tell any Member of Parliament what they think about the House of Commons.
The aim of marauders—who act sometimes on their own behalf but, I suspect, sometimes with the co-operation of the Opposition Front Bench, although I do not blame the Opposition Front Bench for this—is to discredit the Government and to suggest that the Government pay no attention to Parliament, and will railroad everything through. The effect of their actions is not only to discredit the Government—in fact, the public will judge whether the Government have been discredited—but to discredit Parliament. Parliament is now viewed with great cynicism, which is why I believe that we must make reforms.
Parliament is not about the nonsense of staying up all night being very inefficient, making silly and often drunken points after 10 pm. The test of virility seems to be how long Members can speak, not what they say. Members would do well to visit the European and Scottish Parliaments—I have not visited the Welsh Assembly, so I cannot comment on that—and note the efficient way in which they conduct their business. It is possible to argue about the end result, but they conduct their business far more effectively, and when we consider reform of the House we should also consider whether we can learn from some of their procedures.
When it comes to reform, we must differentiate—I know that this is repetition, Mr. Deputy Speaker—between important issues and issues that are less important. We must differentiate between issues that should be discussed in the House—all night, if they are important and it has been agreed that the time is needed—and issues such as ice-cream vans in royal parks, which I think can be dealt with by a Committee. Ice-cream salespersons and park officials would be happy to hear the arguments put in a Committee; they do not need to hear them put in the Chamber.
Another major reform should be made: everything should be timetabled. A guillotine system is hopeless, because the accusation will always be made that the Government are acting for their own reasons in the

particular circumstances. It will be said that there has not been enough debate, and that the Government made the decision even before Report. The only way to avoid such arguments is to timetable every piece of business dealt with by the House and its Committees, giving it an appropriate allocation of time that will depend on the seriousness of the issue.
The timetable should not be something that can be imposed only by Government Whips. There should be a Government recommendation providing for some fallback—an appeals structure, as it were, giving those who do not think enough time has been given an opportunity to challenge the timetable. Such motions should not be debated every day for three hours: there should be an occasion to deal with them.
We waste far too much time voting: there is no need for that. We should have electronic voting once a week, when everyone would know they had to be here. The votes could take place very quickly, and there could still be provision for consequential voting when that was essential to the procedure.
The guillotine motion needs the support of the House if we are to make progress with the business. However, we will be back again in a couple of weeks with more such motions unless we face up to the issue of reforming the House.

Mr. David Maclean: This is an important guillotine motion, because never in my recollection have two guillotine motions been imposed in one day to drive through four Bills when they have had so little debate. We have heard that one Bill may have been debated for one hour 13 minutes or one hour 14 minutes, and another for one hour 12 minutes. All told, there has been a total debating time in Committee on these two Bills of two and a half hours. We have no time to debate either Bill on Report, and we have a guillotine motion to drive both Bills through this afternoon.
I start from the principle enunciated by a great parliamentarian, who said:
All guillotines are an affront.…
Guillotines, surely, represent a failure of the parliamentary process. They imply that the House has neither the disposition nor the time to deal properly with the matters in hand. They also render impossible the main function of the House, which is to scrutinise legislation properly; and they deny Back Benchers, in particular, an opportunity to give their attention to it. I suspect that they also imply the existence of an excess of legislation.
Goodness me, we have heard a lot about that this afternoon. He went on:
The fact that a guillotine needs to be introduced at any stage of the parliamentary Session suggests that the Government are putting too much legislation before the House, and the House feels that it is not being given proper time to deal with it.—[Official Report, 9 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 663.]
Those wise words were spoken not in the 19th century in the Irish debate, not in 1945 during the Attlee Government, but on 9 May by the parliamentarian of the year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). That gives them extra gravitas.
We also heard the wise words of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Labour Members may dismiss what I say or what my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said


with his usual eloquence—even more so today. He made some telling and powerful points—and not just those in my defence or in defence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) described us as "marauders", but Labour Members cannot dismiss the wise words of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. It is not as if she has just come to the views that she now espouses. I can remember being in government as a junior Minister sitting on the Government Benches and cowering behind our Leader of the House as a guillotine motion was advanced to close a Bill with one day's debate having spent 130 hours in Committee. I can also recall when, as a junior Whip, I went to the then Leader of the House, Lord Wakeham as he now is. I do not tell tales of the Whips Office—never have and never will—and I do not think that this is telling tales out of school. I said, "We are bogged down upstairs. Members are keeping us going on Scottish legislation. We need a guillotine." He said, "Come back when you have done 130 hours. We will talk about it then."
Just 10 years ago, there was no question of the Government having the gall, the effrontery or the arrogance to come to the Dispatch Box and to put a guillotine motion before the House until we had done at least 100 hours in Committee upstairs, with the prospect of doing another 100, still not being past clause 6 and still being bogged down in Committee. There would have been no question of coming before the House with a guillotine motion on Report when we had not even had the Report stage of a Bill.
Again, I have sat on the Government Benches as the then Government defended themselves at the Dispatch Box from attack after attack by Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich who has consistently attacked guillotines that she considers excessive and act too quickly or peremptorily. I remember sitting on the Government Benches as we advocated a guillotine to give six hours, 10 hours or two days to the remaining stages of Bills when we had already spent days bogged down on Report. Those were the days when we were kept up all night. Some research is called for. I shall commission it shortly at the end of the debate.

Mr. David Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman is recalling his experiences when he was on the Government Benches. Would he care to confirm my own research on the number of guillotined Bills? In 1987–88 it was six, in 1988–89 it was 10, and in 1989–90 it was 4, making a total of 20. That was the number three years after the June 1987 election, compared with 15 at this point in the current Parliament. Does he agree that the Government whom he supported were even more enthusiastic users of the guillotine, which he now criticises the present Government for using?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman's statistics are entirely wrong, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has already explained. It is not just the number of guillotines that count—we have heard that the Government have guillotined about 50 Bills—but at what point in the process the Government use the most draconian method of curtailing debate available to them.
Of course, one can defend the use of a guillotine in certain circumstances. I listened with incredulity—no, I was not incredulous. It was the usual speech that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) makes before he bolts from the Chamber. We shall no doubt hear him make the same point in the debate on the next guillotine motion.
The hon. Gentleman went on and on about a Government not being able to tolerate sitting here night after night, hour after hour, debating the same measure. He said that the right of the majority must be respected, and that the Government must have the right to impose a guillotine after all that time. He missed the fundamental point. These Bills have had two and a half hours' debate at most, by probably, at most, 30 Members of Parliament upstairs. Another 630 of us have not had a chance to consider one iota of them on Report.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has just repeated the assertion that has been made a number of times during the debate—that the House repeatedly sits all through the night. My memory suggests that, in the three years of the current Parliament, the House has sat all through the night two or three times, but it is no more than that. Will he confirm that fact? Does he not believe that a mythology is arising? More often than not, the House now finishes at 10 o'clock and almost never sits through the night.

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was going to come on to that point—it is in the part of my speech entitled "The myth of sitting through the night". We have heard hon. Members talk about it. There was a point during my 17 years in the House—it was in the mid-1980s—when all-night sittings were fairly common. When one did two in a row, that was tough going. No doubt two all-night sittings in a row, or going until midnight on the second night, tired Ministers, Whips and all those participating.
I am not saying that that was the best way of passing parliamentary business, or that we were at our freshest and best. I am not defending that way of proceeding. However, we must puncture the illusion—which has been quoted by too many people who want excuses to take away hon. Members' rights—that we are sitting all night, all the time. It just does not happen any more.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the mid-1980s pale into insignificance compared with the early 1970s, when night after night—especially in our consideration of the Industrial Relations Act 1971; I did not miss a single sitting—we were kept up by skilful Labour Members, who—although, in my view, misguidedly—absolutely properly used all the instruments available to them to delay what they considered to be inappropriate and obnoxious legislation?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He also has a more glorious record of sitting long hours than I have, as I was elected to the House in the 1980s. His intervention is relevant to this guillotine motion. One of the reasons given by Labour Members for seeking to curtail debate is that we must prevent all-night debates, because we have wasted so much time on them that they have been bad for legislation. In this Parliament, however, we have had barely any all-night sittings. Moreover, although we have not even started to consider on Report


the Nuclear Safeguards Bill and the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill, the Government have already moved to guillotine debate on them.
I could understand the Government moving a guillotine motion on the Bills if, having ploughed on with debate on them until 2 am or 3 am, the Government decided that they could not get the legislation by continuing debate for another hour or so, and that it would be better to give up and to come back on another day with a guillotine. We have not even started debating the Bills on Report, but the Government are introducing the draconian instrument of the guillotine. One of their excuses for doing so is that they do not want the House sitting up all night.

Mr. Bercow: I do not want to deflect my right hon. Friend from the thrust of his argument, but will he take this opportunity to rebut the dangerous argument made by the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill), who suggested that precisely because a Bill had been considered so briefly in Committee, that in itself justified minimal attention being given to it by the House on Report? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe recently used a similar argument in relation to another Bill, saying that she would not give way to me because I had not been on the Committee? Does he agree that it is essential to understand that Bills are reported to the House so that all hon. Members are able thoroughly to debate their contents?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That illustration also portrays one of the frightening attitudes of some Labour Members, who believe that opposition to the Government is blasphemous. One can detect that attitude whenever any criticism is made of the Prime Minister. The Government's attitude is essentially one of, "But you cannot oppose us—we are right. You should not talk against the Bill—it is right. We are doing it—it must be right." That attitude is creeping into so many spheres.
The Government's attitude seems to be that because legislation has been considered in Committee, that should be it—it is good enough. They seem to think that we should not consider legislation at all on Report, because they gave it some time in Committee, where another noble bunch of Members of Parliament considered it. They seem to be asking what on earth we are doing trying to consider it in the Chamber.
Conversely, I have heard some Ministers suggest that it is outrageous for Opposition Members to table amendments on Report, because we were not on the Committee and did not raise the issues there. I have not heard that said by the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who has been handed the poisoned chalice today. He is a nice, decent and honourable man, told to do a dirty job that should have been done by the Leader of the House. It is an outrageous contempt that the right hon. Lady is not here in person to face the House and justify the motion.
The Government, however, cannot have it both ways. If they want to gag us, they should be brutal enough to say that they do not like opposition per se. They should have the guts to say whether they believe that it is blasphemous, irrational or not to be tolerated for

Opposition Members—or Labour Members—to pop up and say that the Government may be wrong. They should not produce the type of guillotine motion that we are now debating. It is intended drastically to curtail debate on Bills that the House has not had a chance to debate or to run, to see how they might turn out.

Mr. David Taylor: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. A few moments ago, I attempted to roll back the calendar a decade to look at the experience of the first three years of the Government elected in June 1987, led by Lady Thatcher, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. The figures show that 20 Bills were guillotined in that period—making use of a tool that the right hon. Gentleman has described as a draconian instrument used by all-powerful Governments who arrogantly tread all over their Back Benchers and the Opposition. How many of those 20 guillotine motions did the right hon. Gentleman vote for?

Mr. Maclean: I sincerely hope that I voted for all of them if I was serving in the Government. If the hon. Gentleman has tried to do some research, he should tell us how many times Lady Thatcher or members of her Government argued for a guillotine after only one and a half hours of debate in Committee. If any Tory Minister had tried that, there would have been outrage from the Labour party and the media, who at that time considered it their fundamental duty to join the Opposition in opposing the Tory Government, because they thought that Lady Thatcher's 120 majority was too big and was bad for democracy. Now we have a Government with a majority of 180 driving through what they like with the media licking their boots—I choose boots as a safer and more advisable part of the anatomy.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend recalls the many late-night and all-night sittings that we had in the late 1980s and the excitement that ran through the Chamber at about 4 o'clock in the morning when, while we were feeling extremely weary, in through the door behind the Speaker's Chair appeared the Prime Minister, without a hair out of place and looking as bright as a button. How many times has my right hon. Friend seen the present Prime Minister in the Chamber when the House has been sitting late at night? Let us hope that he will be kept up late at night now.

Mr. Maclean: I should not care to speculate on matters that might be out of order, but in relation to the motion, it will be interesting to see whether the Prime Minister turns up. His Government appear to consider the four Bills under discussion today to be so vital that they must have these draconian motions, so I assume that if the Prime Minister can tear himself away from his family duties today, he might be able to pop through the voting Lobbies for a few minutes. When we had all-night sittings in the 1980s, one would always see the then Prime Minister participating, just as one always saw the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and Bob Cryer going through the Opposition Lobbies, because they were the ones who had kept us here most of the day and night, doing their important parliamentary duty of scrutinising all legislation properly and in detail and trying to find flaws in it.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I missed the intoxicating excitements of the 1980s and


early 1990s to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) referred, because, as I am happy to concede and the House will be aware, I am a parliamentary virgin. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason why it is essential that we should debate the Report and Third Readings of the Bills before us today in particular detail is that, if anything, in the past three years the Opposition have debated for too few hours in the House, not too many?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right. If he studies the time that the House has sat, he will see that, given the number of Bills and measures that we have considered, the number of hours allocated to debate has declined considerably since the new Government came to power.
My hon. Friend has made another confession. I was in the House a few months ago when he came out and confessed that he was heterosexual. We have heard today that he is a parliamentary virgin. However, there is still time left in this parliamentary Session for my hon. Friend to lose his parliamentary virginity in whatever way he thinks appropriate.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said that he would support the Conservative party in opposing the motions. He suggested that my right hon. and hon. Friends' scrutiny of legislation was like the monkeys who, with lots of typewriters and enough years, would doubtless write a Shakespeare play. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend that to be derogatory, but I took slight umbrage at that.
Amendments tabled to many Bills by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and I—particularly on Fridays—have, on most occasions, been accepted by the Government. Hardly a Friday goes past without a Minister agreeing at the Dispatch Box that an amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend or myself has merit. Ministers say that the Government will consider it and, perhaps, adopt it in another place. I will not embarrass the Ministers concerned by quoting their words about some of the amendments that we have tabled—amendments which Labour Members have described as wasting time or filibustering. On nearly all of those occasions, the Government have accepted that our amendments were valid.
I have tabled some amendments on the Order Paper today, some of which have been selected by Madam Speaker. I assume that they are in order and that the Chair does not regard them as utterly irrelevant. Over the past few years, I have been fortunate in having many amendments selected for debate. In drafting them, I have often thought that the Government would dislike them, that the amendments would get nowhere and that it could be a waste of time. However, I have persisted because I believe that it is our duty as parliamentarians to scrutinise legislation and draft amendments.
With regard to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, my new clauses were an attempt to address the problems of entry and the powers of arrest and give foreign inspectors certain rights to go into people's homes. I thought that I could address some of the concerns, and I tabled amendments which have been selected. For someone to suggest—as the hon. Member for Walsall, North did—that we are wasting time by drafting irrelevant amendments is an affront to the whole purpose of Parliament, which is to scrutinise legislation, and an insult to the Chair.
When I have strayed out of order, the Chair has pulled me up; severely, on some occasions. I make no complaint about that; it is the duty of the occupant of the Chair. However, we can say that all my other remarks on these occasions were in order and that there was no wasting time. In last week's debate on the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, the Minister welcomed some of our amendments and suggested that we had conducted the debate properly, efficiently and courteously. He said that there was some merit in our arguments. He then convinced us that his approach was better and we withdrew the amendments.
If we had wanted to waste some time, we would have forced a vote on the amendments, and that would have been even more embarrassing for the Government because they had given their Back Benchers the night off. That was at only 7 o'clock in the evening. If the Government cannot keep their Members here at 7 o'clock, there is not much hope of them being here on a Friday between 9 and 2, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst vainly hopes.
Why are we considering this motion today? I can only assume that the Government have got frit and lost their nerve. We face a massive amount of legislation, because the Government have overloaded their legislative programme. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North was right to question the Government's priorities. Some chap from London wrote to me recently to say that the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill was vitally important and that I must, in no circumstances, speak against it. He wanted the powers to drive out the smelly hamburger sellers within days. I could respond only by saying that I am just one Member of Parliament. If the Government think that the issue is so important, they should adopt it as a programme Bill and get it through that way. However, the hon. Gentleman questioned the wisdom of the Government in selecting measures that he considers not to be of earth-shattering importance. He told the House today that some measures in the Government's programme are sufficiently important to fight about that we could sit up all night debating them.

Mr. Doug Henderson: The right hon. Gentleman has drawn conclusions from what I said and claimed that I said something that I did not say. I said that the House needed reform and should draw a distinction between important and less important legislation. I did not say that any of the legislation before us today was not important. I actually said that the House must consider effective ways to deal with the issue.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's clarification, but in his next breath, or in his next sentence, he mentioned the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, and he seemed to minimise its importance by referring to ice-cream sellers. He dismissed ice-cream sellers in royal parks, and I took it that he was using that Bill as an example of a measure that he did not consider as important as other legislation.
I cannot make such distinctions. The Government lay out their legislative programme and the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill is a Government Bill. Therefore, I expect it to get the sort of scrutiny that a Government Bill should get. It should not be bounced through on the nod on a Friday, which is a bad way to make legislation. It should not be bounced through after one hour and 10 minutes in


Committee. The Government should not then claim that it has been debated by 18 or 24 Members in Committee and that we should just let it through. That is not the proper way to make legislation and that is not doing our duty as parliamentarians.

Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be some consistency in the statements from Labour Members? If they wish the job of a Member of Parliament more closely to resemble that of almost anybody else, in the private or public sector, they should answer the question that would be on the lips of many millions of members of the public why the House does not sit for approximately 20 weeks of the year. If they defend that arrangement and continue to want the House to consider the quantity of legislation that it currently considers, they have to accept that many more late nights will be required.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which brings me to the comments made recently by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham). There were many new Members after the election and I do not recognise all of them, but I confess that today was the first time I have ever seen the hon. Lady. On Fridays, I have the pleasure of contesting with some very able—I am not being patronising—hon. Ladies on the other side who have driven through legislation and are often here participating in debate, giving myself and my hon. Friends a tough time of it. I can only assume, given that some hon. Ladies on the Government Benches are able to cope, that the hon. Member for Gloucester was looking for an excuse when she decided to make her comments at the weekend about leaving Parliament.
If the hon. Member for Gloucester wants the House to operate from nine to five, or to work a shorter week, or to finish earlier at night—not that it goes on as long as it used to—she must accept the 48-week year worked by most people outside the House. Hon. Members have constituency engagements in recesses, but Parliament cannot have both a nine-to-five working day and a 30-week year. Something has to give, and that something is scrutiny of legislation. The Government have overloaded the legislative programme. They should not complain when some parts of the programme receive more scrutiny than they would wish.
It is not the Minister's fault that the Government have got into this problem with the four Bills before the House today. The Minister is decent and honourable, but he is not in the driving seat of the programme. The Government's business managers, the Cabinet Ministers and the Chief Whip are in the driving seat, and they are the ones who have got the Government into this muddle. They have added these Bills to the programme without considering that there might be opposition to them, or that hon. Members might want to debate them.
It was assumed that no one cared about the Bills and would not oppose them. It was assumed that they could be bounced through Committee and Report—although the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill will not have a Report stage at all.

Mr. Forth: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the problem is even worse than he suggests? All the Bills

contain controversial proposals, such as increased police powers, powers of entry to private premises, retrospectivity, and the possibility that private information might be divulged by the Department of Social Security or the BBC. Surely no one can suggest, therefore, that they can be nodded through without thorough scrutiny?

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is right, but I did not suggest that the Bills were unimportant and non-controversial. That is what the Government's business managers or their advisers think, and they have got it seriously wrong. After all, the Government have tabled a new clause to the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill. They will drive it through later tonight, but I hope that Conservative Members are not accused of giving unnecessary scrutiny to an innocuous little Bill that everyone supports.

Mr. Bercow: Given the concerns once more expressed by Conservative Members about these important Bills, and assuming that the Leader of the House will be voting tonight, would not it be a courtesy for the Minister to say whether she will move the second allocation of time motion?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right. There is time to get a message to the Leader of the House that she should return to the courtesies of the House by moving the next guillotine motion. I cannot recall a junior Minister being given that task, but the fact that Cabinet Ministers no longer make all statements to the House diminishes the House's status and importance. In the past, Cabinet Ministers opened important debates, but Ministers of State now do that—a practice that would have driven the Labour party in opposition mental. It is all a plan to diminish the importance of the House, and to remove the need for Cabinet Ministers to justify their actions to Parliament. The Prime Minister does not do that, so why should the rest of the Cabinet?
I shall begin to draw my remarks to a conclusion, as I know that other Conservative Members want to contribute to the debate. I have missed out most of my main arguments in principle, but there will be another opportunity to, make them later.
I turn now to the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill. No amendments have been tabled to that Bill, but the Government have guillotined debate on it. I appreciate that with a good brief, a fair wind and remarkable—almost incredible—tolerance from the Chair, it might be possible for some people to speak for 30 minutes on the Third Reading of that Bill.
I doubt that any occupant of the Chair would tolerate longer speeches on that measure, however. If hon. Members tried to speak for longer on that little Bill, the Government could move a closure motion. I do not presume to predict what the Chair might do, but I guess that it would grant a pretty rapid closure motion—even though the Bill was not amended in Committee and has been debated for only one hour and 12 minutes.
The Government are not prepared to accept even that. They have proposed a motion to guillotine debate on the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill, even though we lack the opportunity to debate that little Bill all night in any case. The hon. Member for Walsall, North should recognise that the mechanism to allow us to spend all


night on that Bill does not exist. No amendments have been selected for that Bill, so there are not the half a dozen groups of amendments that would allow us to attempt to talk for ages. However, the Government have guillotined debate anyway.
The Nuclear Safeguards Bill has been allocated the same amount of time—one hour—as the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill, even though there are five groups of amendments to debate. Two of those groups—concerning powers of entry, access and search, and restrictions on disclosure of information—are very important. The first group was discussed in Committee in another place, and it exercised that Committee greatly.

Mr. Forth: Last week, the Leader of the House implied that the Bills were inconsequential and uncontroversial and that they therefore need not detain the House for long. The Minister said the same today, but Madam Speaker has selected for debate three new clauses and 29 amendments to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill. Does not that suggest that Madam Speaker agrees that the Bill is worth a great deal of the House's attention and time? Does my right hon. Friend know the answer to that apparent conundrum?

Mr. Maclean: The answer is straightforward: the Government are trying to advance arguments that they know are wrong. That is why the Minister wisely curtailed his remarks today. He spoke as gently and apologetically as he could in his attempt to justify this appalling guillotine motion. He could not rant and rave, justifying the motion against an Opposition baying for blood. He knew that there was no justification for the motion. That is why he adopted the approach of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who goes round the country saying to farmers, "I know you're all going out of business, and it is terrible, but I am a nice chap, so don't criticise me." The right hon. Gentleman gets away with it—for the moment. That is a skill that one admires. Similarly, the Home Secretary comes before the House to say that something else has gone wrong in the Home Office but as he is a good, decent guy, no one wants to land a punch on him—although my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is getting a taste for it.
I understand why the Minister adopted that low-key approach to the guillotine—not wanting to announce it, saying that it did not really merit one, but that it had to be done because of all the loose ends, and it was pretty ghastly. That is a feeble excuse for imposing a guillotine. The Minister knows it, and he got away without having a baying mob attack him at the Dispatch Box only because of his reputation for being an honest, decent man. To borrow an analogy from the Liberal Benches, he is the monkey—in the nicest possible sense—who has to be at the Dispatch Box today. The organ grinder has wisely stayed hidden away in a room. The monkey has been produced to grind the organ, appease the House and take the blame for this discreditable and disreputable draconian guillotine.

Mr. Forth: In spite of what my right hon. Friend has said, does he agree that if the Minister, when he has the opportunity to reply to the debate, can give us further

views and a proper reply, rather than the apologetic and low-key remarks with which he introduced the debate, that might be very useful?

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I take that as a reminder that there are only 41 minutes of the debate left. Having made some of the points on principle on the guillotine motion that I wished to make, I am happy to conclude my remarks, conscious that others wish to speak and that we need the Minister's reply.

Mr. Keith Darvill: The debate has covered a number of matters. Conservative Members have displayed so-called outrage, which I consider to be synthetic. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have also spoken about the reform of the Chamber and the way in which we do our business. I do not want to speak about that in my brief contribution, but I think it relevant, when we debate a motion such as this, to discuss how we could better carry out the business of the House.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. I should like to challenge him on one point. I think that he should reflect on his suggestion that the sense of offence felt by Conservative Members is synthetic. It is not synthetic at all. There is a very strong feeling on this side of the House, which was echoed on the Government Benches in the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), that Parliament is increasingly held in contempt by Government.

Mr. Darvill: If the hon. Gentleman had let me continue a little further, he would have seen that I will soon be getting round to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I will come to the point about synthetic outrage in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will permit me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich talked about the role of Back Benchers. I am not blindly following the Government's line on the motion; I am considering it purely as a Back Bencher. I am interested in the question of balance, mentioned by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)—the balance between the legislation that we are considering at any particular time and the amount of time that the House grants to it. That is the basis on which I have considered the timetable motion before us, and I think that it does deserve the support of the House.
I have listened to a number of such debates in this Parliament, and some genuine points have been made about cutting the time that we spend on debates, which should clearly be challenged by the Opposition. However, we need to look at the issues that we are debating and how to allocate our time for the entire legislative programme.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Timetables were introduced for the first time because of Irish business when, for four months, the House of Commons had debated nothing but Irish legislation. It is rather different from the matters that we are talking about tonight.

Mr. Darvill: I agree that it is. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that we need to look at every piece of


legislation and the time that we spend on it. If the House had been debating a piece of legislation for four months and that was deemed to be too long, it must have come to a decision to cut short the debate.
The Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill obtained support from all parties in the House. It closes a loophole in the law. The Second Reading debate was wide ranging; the debates in Committee were quite detailed; and the amendments which were tabled—I do not think that they were selected—would not have changed the purpose of the Bill significantly. The amount of time spent debating that piece of legislation could well have been adequate with a short timetable.

Sir Patrick Cormack: To echo the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), why, in the name of goodness, are the Government seeking to guillotine a Bill when there is no Report stage because no amendments have been tabled and when, by common consent, it would receive a brief, expeditious and sensible Third reading? Why take a sledgehammer to this Bill?

Mr. Darvill: That is a fair point. In the time allocated to both pieces of legislation, there is sufficient time within the timetable motion to discuss that. It seems perfectly reasonable.
I made the point earlier about the number of amendments tabled in Committee, and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made a specific point about it. My point was that when Back-Bench Members are considering the controversy of a Bill and the issues that it contains, they should look at how that Bill was debated in Committee. That is not to restrict Back-Bench Members in tabling amendments, but, in coming to a balanced view on the time that we give to legislation, one factor to consider—although not the only one—is the way in which a Bill was dealt with in Committee.

Mr. Bercow: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that another factor to consider is the number of new clauses and amendments tabled on Report—32 in this case. Will the hon. Gentleman at least be guided by precedent in the debate, and give the House an example, with specifics, of a situation between 1979 and 1997 when a Bill that had a truncated Second Reading and was debated in Committee for only 1 hour and 12 minutes was nevertheless thought appropriate for the imposition of a guillotine?

Mr. Darvill: No, of course I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer to that question. One would need to analyse the debates that took place over that period.
The two Bills before us are uncontroversial in the view of the majority of Members of the House. All those who have contributed to the debate have signified support for them, certainly in Committee. Despite some opposition from individual Members, these two Bills have received support from all parties.

Mr. Paterson: We are discussing a Bill under which a person who contravenes its provisions when it is enacted will go to jail for up to two years or have imposed on him

an unlimited fine if he goes before a jury. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that is uncontroversial? Is not our first role to come here to defend the liberties of our constituents and to ensure that legislation is properly considered, in great detail, before casting them upon the whims of a jury?

Mr. Darvill: That is absolutely right. It is a question of the time that we allocate to that process. Many Bills that pass through the House have provisions of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has described. Such issues have not been ignored during our debates. Time has been given to them. They were considered on Second Reading, they were debated in Committee and they will be debated this evening.

Mr. Bercow: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is being characteristically courteous.
Let us move the debate on from generalities, in which the hon. Gentleman is indulging, to specifics. He will have heard me say earlier that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) was content with only seven and a half minutes of debate on each new clause and amendment, and that was assuming that there would be no Divisions, which was a rather improbable scenario. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that seven and a half minutes per new clause and amendment is wholly inadequate consideration? If he does, will he put a figure on what he thinks would be a more appropriate allocation of time?

Mr. Darvill: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the amendments would be grouped and discussed on that basis. There would not have been seven and a half minutes' consideration per new clause and amendment. Such an analysis can be used to discredit any allocation of time motion. The overall time allowed would have been sufficient if we had moved on to the new clauses and amendments sooner.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the time available to discuss the amendments and new clauses has been attenuated. I suspect that we shall be left with one hour to discuss the Nuclear Safeguards Bill. It contains 32 clauses, which means that we shall have less than two minutes to consider each one of them, and that is assuming that there are no Divisions. Even if we take the amendments as five groups and consider them on that basis, we shall have only five minutes per—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Some interventions, and not only the hon. Gentleman's, have been overlong. Make them brief in future.

Mr. Darvill: I think that I answered the point made by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) when I responded earlier to the intervention of the hon. Member for Buckingham.

Mr. Paul Keetch: We supported the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee, and we supported the closure motion. The debate has moved on and the Bill is next to be considered on Report. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a great difference between the Government wanting legitimately to get their


legislative programme through the House, including Bills that have cross-party support, and introducing four guillotine motions in one day?

Mr. Darvill: First, we are debating guillotine motions on two Bills. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Committee that considered the Bill. He had the opportunity between Second Reading and consideration in Committee to table amendments that reflected his and his party's point of view. I note that there was only about one hour and 17 minutes of debate. A factor that I am taking into account in establishing whether we are achieving the right balance and providing the right time for debate in the Chamber is whether the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues tabled any amendments in Committee. Had they done so, had they spent a significant amount of time debating them and had they analysed key issues, those opposing the motion would have a much stronger argument to advance.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not a fact that there are 32 amendments and three new clauses to consider when we come to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill? Without the motion, we would not complete consideration on Report this evening unless the Government decided to let the debate proceed until a late hour. At most, we would have completed consideration of the one Bill. It is more than likely that that process would have been completed at 3 am, 4 am or 5 am. Many amendments would not have been debated. That is the only alternative to the motion that is before us.

Mr. Darvill: As ever, my hon. Friend, who has much more experience in the House than I, makes an extremely good point.
It is regrettable that the number of guillotine motions introduced by Governments is increasing. That is partly because of the weight of legislation. That must be acknowledged. Increasingly, Governments have large programmes of legislation because there is a demand from society for that. That should be reflected in the way in which we deal with our business. We must establish the right balance when determining the time that we can devote to legislation and how Members can cope with that in terms of their parliamentary and personal lives. Against that background, I am in favour of more timetable motions. Provided that we have the appropriate safeguards, that is the way forward. I shall support the motion.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: I thank the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) for restoring my faith in democracy, which was being sat on by various heavy quarters in various places. It was an admirable speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) was criticised by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on various parts of his speech. I understood that my hon. Friend was making it clear that Liberal Democrats oppose the motion. However, he was adopting the sound attitude of Voltaire, pointing out that he disagreed with many of the arguments of Conservative Members but fully supporting their right to advance them. He added that

sometimes they produced good amendments that deserved support, but often there is filibustering, irrelevant debate and general time wasting, which most people think brings Parliament into disrepute. He was supporting the Opposition's right to oppose guillotine motions and saying that the Government should not impose them.
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that we must consider Parliament's procedures and the way that we run our democracy. It is clear that Parliament is failing in its duties to hold the Executive to account and adequately to scrutinise Bills. To the dismay of Conservative Members, my hon. Friend said that a decent voting system would greatly diminish the power of the Executive. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) similarly said that Parliament must review its procedures in order to do things better. He argued that there are better ways of holding the Government to account than ambushes late at night and filibusters, for example.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be careful. The Chair would never allow filibustering.

Mr. Gorrie: I stand corrected, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise.

Mr. Paterson: The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) made it clear that Liberal Democrats oppose the motion. When I asked what their answer was, the answer was about as satisfactory as chewing cardboard. Will the hon. Gentleman explain what methods the Liberal Democrats would propose?

Mr. Gorrie: My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove found that he was being led into a long disquisition on subjects not really relevant to the debate. I may receive another deserved rebuke from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I take them up. My hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) have put forward proposals to the Modernisation Committee, some of which would meet the point made by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson).

Mr. Stunell: Bearing in mind that there will be a second debate on guillotine motions, there may be an opportunity to colour in the picture that I sketched earlier.

Mr. Gorrie: I look forward to enjoying my hon. Friend's impressionistic skills.
My main point—a fresh, if, perhaps, a cheeky, one—is that, as a Member of another, much newer Parliament, I know that it learns from this Parliament, and bad habits are easier to copy than good ones. The Government treat this Parliament with a good deal of disdain, and Parliament does not adequately check that Government. Those facts set a tone that the Parliament in Edinburgh is tending to copy. We ought to scrutinise the Government properly to encourage newer and younger parliaments to do the same. We owe it to others to set the House in order by scrutinising the Government properly and by stopping these ridiculous guillotines.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) for an outstanding speech, which


demonstrated the distilled wisdom of an hon. Lady who has been an active participant in the House for a great many years. Without wishing to embarrass her, I hope that her speech will become compulsory reading for all new Members. She demonstrated her wide and sensible understanding of how the House operates, and she reflected exactly what is so important about Parliament.
This institution is under fire. Its powers are haemorrhaging away, and I use that word deliberately. They are haemorrhaging to the European Union, the constituent parts of the United Kingdom—to Scotland and to Wales—and, come 1 October, even more greatly to the courts. For that reason, this debate is timely. We ought to oppose the guillotine, and should debate some of the wider issues at stake, as you are allowing us to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I was a Member in the 1980s, and I recall sitting up all night. I loathed it, and I thought that it was a stupid way to operate. I had not been here long when I arrived home at 3 am or 4 am once, only for my then young daughter—who now works a few yards from here—to jump on me at 7 am. I said, "Emily, go away, daddy is very tired." She answered, "Daddy, do you know what MP stands for?" I said, "No." She said, "It stands for Mouldy Person."
It can be difficult to combine life in this place with family life. However, it was important in the 1980s fully to debate the matters that were discussed. The Opposition were rightly given every opportunity to oppose a Government with a majority of 140, of which I was happy to be one. There was then far greater opposition to the Government—by Bob Cryer, then the hon. Member for Keighley, and by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Every night, there would be a 45-minute debate on the money resolution. Good luck to them. I was an idiot to believe the Whips who told me that I had to be here. I should have gone home long before I did.
The House does itself a disservice in the manner in which all Governments deal with the Committee stage of Bills. Virtually no amendment introduced in Committee by an Opposition Member can possibly be accepted by the Government of the day. It will be dismissed as defective, as striking at the heart of the Bill or destroying the Bill. Then, however, we come to Report, and the Bill requires 300 or 400 Government amendments. That tends to lower the esteem of the House in the eyes of the public. Governments—Tory, Labour or whatever—would do themselves much good by accepting that a Bill can be improved by the Opposition.
On how we facilitate opposition to legislation, I cannot see a way around our existing rules, save at the expense of reducing yet further the powers of the Opposition to oppose. The Government of the day have a huge raft of powers and levers that enable them to dragoon their people into their Lobby. Not least is the power of patronage. If Members do not do as the Government say, they will not have the benefit of a magnificent office as parliamentary private secretary to the Under-Secretary of State for Pensions or whatever illustrious office it may be.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that reducing the hours of this

place would lead to even greater problems because of the occasional inability of Governments to listen to common sense?

Mr. Howarth: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. He is entirely right.
I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham), who has taken the trouble to come to the Chamber this evening, although I did not have the opportunity to hear what she had to say. I read what she had to say over the weekend, and I agree that it is difficult to combine membership of the House with bringing up children.

Ms Kingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: In a moment. I am somewhat old-fashioned, and I believe that bringing up children is an extremely responsible job. One of the great contributions that women make to the continuation of society is the exercise of that responsibility. I recognise that it is hard to combine that job with being a Member of Parliament.

Ms Kingham: rose—

Mr. Howarth: Before the hon. Lady intervenes, let me also tell her that my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, for whom I had the privilege of being parliamentary private secretary for about six months, managed to combine both things. So does Nicola Horlick, who earns a great deal more than we do. In the City, she combines a demanding job with bringing up, I believe, five children.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are straying away from the motion before us. The hours of work in the House are being considered by the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons.

Ms Kingham: I should like to knock one inaccuracy on the head. I have no difficulty in combining my domestic arrangements with my work. My husband is at home looking after my children; in the same way, male Members of Parliament have left their wives at home with their children for many years. I have been criticising the long hours that we spend in this Chamber that are not worth while and in which we do not debate issues of substance that affect our constituents. I have no objection to working long hours; I have always done so. Nor do most of my hon. Friends have any such objection. There is no problem concerning my combining my family with working practices. I do not find that difficult at all.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On that note, therefore, and as we know what the hon. Lady's thinking is, may we return to the motion before us?

Mr. Howarth: I could not agree more, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are wise to draw to our attention the need to return to the heart of the matter. I would say only that I do not recall having seen the hon. Lady in the Committee on the Nuclear Safeguards Bill on 10 April. I was rudely interrupted then by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy)—the Government's pairing Whip—who moved the closure, but my last words


were "extensive powers". As my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) made clear, the Bill contains powers that have been described outside Parliament as draconian.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) pointed out that it is our duty to scrutinise legislation to ensure that, if we are conferring draconian powers on officials, we do so with the full understanding that, first, those powers are necessary; and, secondly, there are adequate mechanisms to safeguard them so that they are not abused.
Before I was interrupted on 10 April, I was saying that the powers in the Bill are extensive. Clause 5(4) states:
An authorised officer may accompany an Agency inspector while he is exercising powers under this section.
That inspector is an official of a foreign agency—not necessarily a UK national—empowered, without a warrant, to enter a private company in the UK. An authorised officer of the Secretary of State "may accompany" the inspector—in other words, he does not need to do so.
The guillotine motion is unnecessary and wrong because the Bill is important and the House has not had an adequate opportunity to discuss it.

Sir Patrick Cormack: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is terribly important that there is a ministerial winding-up to this important debate.
I draw the Minister's attention, yet again, to three matters; at the very least, I ask him to address them. First, will he explain why the Government have imposed a guillotine before Report on one Bill and when there will be no Report on the other, because no amendments have been tabled? If ever there was a case of premature overreaction, this is it. In his opening remarks, the Minister did not begin to address that matter. We have seen a Government reacting in pique, annoyance and petulance because some parliamentarians take their duties seriously. The Minister must deal with that point.
Secondly, the Minister must address the underlying issue—the context of the debate. Apart from the fact that the Government are piqued and petulant, why have they been driven to this expedient? It is because they have overloaded Parliament with legislation. It was noticeable that even the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), who has now left the Chamber, spoke of the need to introduce only a few pieces of legislation. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and I shared a smile when the hon. Gentleman said that we should have only three or four pieces of legislation, but then argued for a timetable. If there were only a few measures, we should have to consider that argument seriously. The Minister did not begin to address that matter.
Thirdly, I direct the Minister to the most important contribution to the debate. It was not the vastly entertaining speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), although it was a splendid parliamentary exercise; nor was it the many pertinent interventions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) who made the most extraordinary admission. His maiden speech was itself—to use a famous phrase—a brazen hussy of a speech. However, he now says that he is a parliamentary virgin—good gracious me, I have never heard such a confession.
The most important speech was made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). In 10 minutes, she encapsulated what Parliament should be about. She speaks from many years' experience of the House, and as one of the most distinguished members of the Chairmen's Panel. She pointed out to the Minister that a usurpation of Parliament's democratic position is implicit in such a motion. I want to hear what he has to say about that.

Mr. Tipping: First, it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge the bouquets and brickbats that have been thrown at me across the Chamber. The debate has been interesting; its importance has become ever more apparent as it progressed.
The motion paves the way for two important Bills that the House will have the opportunity—albeit limited—to discuss later this evening: the Nuclear Safeguards Bill and the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill. Those who accuse us of considering those Bills unimportant are mistaken.
The significance of the debate has been in relation to process—the way in which we conduct our business. Several hon. Members made important and fundamental speeches—my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has been mentioned more than once.
The debate has drawn out the wide range of views in the House, including that of those who might be described as the Dick Turpins, the Jesse Jameses or the marauders—those who use parliamentary tactics legitimately to disrupt business. I acknowledge that without apology. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was prayed in aid. Some time ago, I had to counsel him to stop giving tutorials to the Opposition—they were becoming too effective. Those hon. Members want to maintain the status quo—the right of Back Benchers to fight and to work into the night. I was struck by the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich that the House has broken more people than it has made.
On the other hand, a group of hon. Members—mainly my hon. Friends—argued that we should modernise and change our procedures. In the middle—as always—were the Liberal Democrats. They argued strongly for modernisation—but not tonight, because they will not support the motions. They argued that we have not got the balance right. I look forward to reading the paper produced by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell).

Mr. Stunell: The Minister implies that the guillotine is a modern invention that is driving forward the procedures of the House. Would he care to use the remainder of his speech to justify that outrageous statement?

Mr. Tipping: I am grateful to have the opportunity of a second go. It has been said that the Liberal Democrats always sit on the fence. Their performance this evening has demonstrated that. They say that, although they do


not like the way the House works at present, they are not prepared to support the Government on this motion, but that, perhaps, they will give us an answer in the future.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) made an important point about balance. We must get the balance right. He asked me specifically to reflect on the comments made during the debate and to talk to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and to other Cabinet colleagues about them. Of course, I will.
We must put into the balance the obvious desire of a small group of hon. Members to use the Chamber, quite legitimately, as a debating society—as a place to test ideas and to push the Government to the wall. I do not object to that—I have never done so. We must also consider those who argue strongly that in order to do some of the things that hon. Members want us to do, we should reform our procedures.
I will closely consider the comments of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire on the programming of Bills. He will remember that that idea sprang from the Jopling report; he will remember that the Conservative party signed up to the report of the Modernisation Committee; and he will remember that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the shadow Leader of the House, has in recent weeks worked hard to make programming work. That is an important and significant way forward.

Mr. Bermingham: Surely the test of whether the Opposition's approach is genuine would be their willingness for the House to sit into August and in September and October. That would create more time for debate.

Mr. Tipping: As always, my hon. Friend leads me on to another important point, and it has been mentioned tonight. I have been struck by the number of hon. Members who have said that there are 659 Members of Parliament. There is no rubric for doing the job correctly. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) clearly thinks that his priority is to be in Chamber frequently and religiously to debate the issues. Other hon. Members—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich for pointing this out—have argued that we do not start at 2.30 pm and work until whatever time at night. Many colleagues spend time on the work of Standing Committees and Select Committees, and other hon. Members believe that it is important to go round the country so that they can talk to people and listen to their views.

Mr. Forth: What?

Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Gentleman's remark typifies the view that we know all the answers. That charge has been laid against the Government, but I remind the House—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83 (Allocation of time to bills).

The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 140.

Division No. 201]
[6.42 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Dawson, Hilton


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Alexander, Douglas
Denham, John


Allen, Graham
Donohoe, Brian H


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Doran, Frank


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Dowd, Jim


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Drew, David


Ashton, Joe
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Atkins, Charlotte
Edwards, Huw


Austin, John
Efford, Clive


Banks, Tony
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Barnes, Harry
Ennis, Jeff


Bayley, Hugh
Etherington, Bill


Beard, Nigel
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Fisher, Mark


Begg, Miss Anne
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Flint, Caroline


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Flynn, Paul


Bennett, Andrew F
Follett, Barbara


Benton, Joe
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Berry, Roger
Fyfe, Maria


Betts, Clive
Galloway, George


Blackman, Liz
Gapes, Mike


Blears, Ms Hazel
Gardiner, Barry


Blizzard, Bob
Gerrard, Neil


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Goggins, Paul


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Browne, Desmond
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Burden, Richard
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Burgon, Colin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Grocott, Bruce


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Grogan, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hain, Peter


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cann, Jamie
Healey, John


Caplin, Ivor
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Casale, Roger
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clapham, Michael
Heppell, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hesford, Stephen


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hill, Keith



Hinchliffe, David


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hope, Phil


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clelland, David
Howells, Dr Kim


Clwyd, Ann
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Coaker, Vernon
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cohen, Harry
Humble, Mrs Joan


Coleman, Iain
Hurst, Alan


Colman, Tony
Hutton, John


Connarty, Michael
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Illsley, Eric


Cooper, Yvette
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jenkins, Brian


Cousins, Jim
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Crausby, David
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)



Cummings, John
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)



Davidson, Ian



Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)







Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pope, Greg


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pound, Stephen


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Primarolo, Dawn


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prosser, Gwyn


Khabra, Piara S
Purchase, Ken


Kidney, David
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kilfoyle, Peter
Quinn, Lawrie


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Rammell, Bill


Kingham, Ms Tess
Rapson, Syd


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Raynsford, Nick


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Laxton, Bob
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lepper, David
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Levitt, Tom
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Roy, Frank


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Ruddock, Joan


Linton, Martin
Salter, Martin


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Lock, David
Savidge, Malcolm


McAvoy, Thomas
Sedgemore, Brian


McCabe, Steve
Shaw, Jonathan


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Singh, Marsha



Skinner, Dennis


McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McIsaac, Shona



McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McNulty, Tony
Soley, Clive


Mactaggart, Fiona
Spellar, John


McWalter, Tony
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Steinberg, Gerry


Mallaber, Judy
Stevenson, George


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Martlew, Eric
Stringer, Graham


Maxton, John
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Meale, Alan
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Merron, Gillian



Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Austin
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Moffatt, Laura
Timms, Stephen


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Tipping, Paddy


Morley, Elliot
Todd, Mark


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Touhig, Don



Trickett, Jon


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)



Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Mountford, Kali
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Mudie, George
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Mulin, Chris
Tynan, Bill


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Norris, Dan
Walley, Ms Joan


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Ward, Ms Claire


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Wareing, Robert N


Olner, Bill
Watts, David


O'Neill, Martin
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Organ, Mrs Diana
Wicks, Malcolm


Pendry, Tom
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Perham, Ms Linda



Pickthall, Colin
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Pike, Peter L
Wills, Michael


Plaskitt, James
Wilson, Brian





Winnick, David
Wyatt, Derek


Wood, Mike



Woolas, Phil
Tellers for the Ayes:


Worthington, Tony
Mr. David Jamieson and


Wray, James
Mr. Mike Hall.


Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)



NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Jenkin, Bernard


Amess, David
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy



Baldry, Tony
Keetch, Paul


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Key, Robert


Bercow, John
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Beresford, Sir Paul
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Blunt, Crispin
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Boswell, Tim
Lansley, Andrew


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Leigh, Edward


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Letwin, Oliver


Brady, Graham
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Brazier, Julian
Lidington, David


Breed, Colin
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Loughton, Tim


Browning, Mrs Angela
Luff, Peter


Burns, Simon
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John



McIntosh, Miss Anne


Cash, William
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
McLoughlin, Patrick



Madel, Sir David


Chope, Christopher
Major, Rt Hon John


Clappison, James
Malins, Humfrey


Collins, Tim
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Cormack, Sir Patrick
May, Mrs Theresa


Cotter, Brian
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Cran, James
Moss, Malcolm


Curry, Rt Hon David
Nicholls, Patrick


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Ottaway, Richard


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Page, Richard


Day, Stephen
Paterson, Owen


Duncan Smith, Iain
Pickles, Eric


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Randall, John


Faber, David
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fabricant, Michael
Rendel, David


Fearn, Ronnie
Robathan, Andrew


Flight, Howard
Robertson, Laurence


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Fox, Dr Liam
Ruffley, David


Fraser, Christopher
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Gale, Roger
St Aubyn, Nick


Garnier, Edward
Sanders, Adrian


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gibb, Nick
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gidley, Sandra
Shepherd, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gorrie, Donald
Steen, Anthony


Green, Damian
Streeter, Gary


Greenway, John
Stunell, Andrew


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Swayne, Desmond


Hague, Rt Hon William
Syms, Robert


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Harvey, Nick
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hawkins, Nick
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Heald, Oliver
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tredinnick, David


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Trend, Michael


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Tyler, Paul


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Tyrie, Andrew


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Webb, Steve


Hunter, Andrew
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John






Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wilkinson, John



Willetts, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Willis, Phil
Mr. Peter Atkinson and


Wilshire, David
Mr. Keith Simpson.


Yeo, Tim

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords] and the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill—

Timetable

1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords] shall be completed at today's sitting and brought to a conclusion (if not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

(2) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and brought to a conclusion (if not previously concluded) five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

Questions to be put

2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on either Bill to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.

(2) The Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(4) If two or more Questions would otherwise fall to be put under sub-paragraph (2)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

Miscellaneous

3. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply at today's sitting to proceedings to which this Order applies.

4. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on either Bill are taken or to recommit either Bill.

6. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to either Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

7. If at today's sitting—

(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Seven o'clock; but

(b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before then,

proceedings on that Motion shall stand postponed until the conclusion of those proceedings.

8. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to either Bill.

Supplemental Orders

9. The proceedings on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (if not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.

10. If at today's sitting the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Orders of the Day — Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords]

Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1

RIGHTS OF SEARCHING PERSONS

'.—(1) Where a police constable has entered premises under authority of a warrant issued under section (Forcible entry warrant) above and has reasonable cause to believe that Additional Protocol information is secreted in or on the body of a person or persons on the premises he may conduct a non-intimate body search of the person or persons.

(2) When a constable has formed the belief in subsection (1) he may order the person or persons to remove any outer coat and hat which may be then searched by a police constable of any sex.

(3) A constable of the same sex as the person or persons being searched may conduct a search of the person or persons and their clothing but may not remove any further articles of clothing.

(4) If a constable conducting the body search in subsection (3) above is of the opinion that Additional Protocol information can only be discovered by an intimate body search of the person or persons being searched then he shall inform the person or persons that he is of that opinion, and if the information is not produced voluntarily he may arrest the person or persons and take them to a police station for an intimate body search.

(5) An intimate body search may only be conducted by a qualified medical practitioner at a police station.

(6) Nothing in this section shall give any rights to authorised officers or others to conduct searches of persons or their clothing.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Maclean: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 3—Forcible entry warrant—
'.—(1) When an authorised officer is refused entry to the premises stipulated in section 4 above, he may apply to a Justice of the Peace for a forcible entry warrant.
(2) If a Justice of the Peace is satisfied on information given on oath that an authorised officer was refused entry on a duly presented warrant, he may issue a forcible entry warrant authorising a police constable to enter the premises (if necessary by force) at any reasonable hour within one month from the time of the issue of the warrant.
(3) A constable who enters premises under authority of a warrant issued under this section shall take with him an authorised officer or officers and may take with him such other persons and equipment as appear to him to be necessary.
(4) The powers of an authorised officer who enters premises under the authority of a warrant issued under this section include power—

(a) to inspect anything found on the premises;
(b) to require any information which is held in electronic form and is accessible from the premises to be produced in a form in which he can read and copy it; and
(c) to copy, or to seize and remove, any document or other thing which he has reasonable cause to believe is something which contains Additional Protocol information.


(5) A constable who enters premises under the authority of a warrant issued by virtue of this section may—


(a) give assistance to the authorised officer to prevent interference with him carrying out his duties in section 4 above; and
(b) may assist in searching the premises.


(6) A person who—

(a) wilfully obstructs an authorised officer in the exercise of a power conferred by warrant or fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a legitimate request made by an authorised officer; or
(b) obstructs, or fails without reasonable excuse to comply with the instructions of a police constable,

is guilty of an offence.'.
Amendment No. 6, in clause 4, page 3, line 25, after "premises" insert ", person or equipment".
Amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 27, after "premises" insert—
', search the person or access the equipment'.
Amendment No. 25, in page 3, line 27, leave out—
', if necessary by force,'.
Amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 27, leave out "one month" and insert "fourteen days".
Amendment No. 26, in page 3, line 45, leave out—
', if necessary by force,'.
Amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 45, leave out "at any reasonable hour".
Amendment No. 28, in clause 5, page 5, line 6, leave out "An Agency Inspector may," and insert—
'If a justice of the peace is satisfied, on information given on oath, that it is reasonable and necessary in accordance with the Additional Protocol for an Agency inspector to do so, he may issue a warrant authorising an Agency inspector to.'.
Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 17, at end insert—
'(2A) . The Agency's powers of access under subsection (2) shall be exercised only in the presence of a constable.'.
Amendment No. 12, in page 5, line 27, leave out "may" and insert "must".
Amendment No. 30, in page 5, line 28, at end insert—
'(4A) No Agency inspector shall, by virtue of this section, search the clothing or the body of a person or persons.'.
Amendment No. 31, in page 5, line 29, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
'(5) Where an Agency inspector is refused entry at any location falling within subsection (1) above he may apply to a justice of the peace for a forcible entry warrant authorising a police constable to enter the premises (if necessary by force) at any reasonable hour within one month from the time of the issue of the warrant.'.
Amendment No. 29, in page 5, line 29, leave out subsection (5).
Amendment No. 27, in page 5, line 32, leave out from "section" to end of line 33.
Amendment No. 13, in page 5, line 38, leave out "conclusive".
Amendment No. 33, in page 5, line 47, at end insert—
'(7A) For the purposes of subsection (7) above, it shall be a defence if the actions of any Agency inspector, in entering or searching premises or persons, infringe the European Convention of Human Rights.'.

Mr. Maclean: It may make more sense if I speak first to new clause 3 and then to new clause 1. I do not propose to say much about my amendments, as they are generally consequential upon my new clauses.
If I may say so, the two new clauses are quite reasonable attempts to improve the Bill: clearly you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Madam Speaker and your advisers concluded that they are in order and selected them for debate. They attempt to deal with an aspect of the Bill that caused great concern in the other place and some concern here on a brief Second Reading. No doubt, the matter might have caused concern in the Committee considering the Bill and, had I been fortunate enough to serve on it, I could have advanced my arguments then instead of waiting for Report.
I appreciate that, with the best will in the world, it is not possible for my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) or me to serve on all the Committees considering Bills in which we have an interest. Therefore, we must use Report stage as a legitimate means to advance arguments that, ideally, we could have advanced in Committee had we had the opportunity. However, we must make such arguments on the Floor of the House to, perhaps, a more receptive and less specialised audience.
To understand new clause 3, it should be set in the context of the Bill. The best starting point for that is not clause 1, but clause 4. Clauses 1, 2 and 3 may be relevant, but only tangentially so. I can get straight into the guts of my new clauses, without spending too much time, if I refer the House to clause 4.
Under clause 4, a justice of the peace can—if he is satisfied, on information given on oath, that the Secretary of State does not have all the information that he might want under clause 2, and that there is some document, thing or other information that a person has refused to give to the Secretary of State—issue a warrant to an authorised officer to allow him to enter the premises of the person who is believed to have that additional protocol information. The authorised officer can enter the premises, if necessary by force—mark those magic words—at any reasonable hour within one month from the time of the issue of the warrant and search them.
That is the first part of clause 4: a justice of the peace gives an authorised officer the power to enter premises, if necessary by force, at any reasonable hour, and to search them.
Subsection (2) again gives an authorised officer the power to enter premises, if necessary by force, again at any reasonable hour within one month, in order to search for a different class of information.
Other parts of clause 4 are necessary to understand my new clause 3. Subsection (5) goes on to state that the authorised officer, who has just got his warrant on oath from the justice of the peace, and has the power to enter premises, if necessary by force, can take with him any other persons and equipment as appear to him to be necessary.
The authorised officer can inspect anything found on the premises. He can require any information that is held in electronic form and is accessible from the premises to be produced in a form in which he can read and copy it. There will be an interesting interface with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill in that regard, but I have not tabled amendments on the matter. In addition, the authorised officer can copy, seize and remove any

document or other thing if he considers that it contains or is relevant to additional protocol information. Those are the powers of the authorised officer who enters premises.

Mr. Eric Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. In his remarks, which of course will be curtailed by the viciousness of the guillotine, which will disallow proper debate, I hope that my right hon. Friend will comment, at least in passing, on my amendment No. 9, which proposes leaving out "at any reasonable hour", and on my amendment No. 10, in which, importantly, I seek to allow the agency's powers of access to be exercised only in the presence of a constable. I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to those amendments, which are important and germane, and which were selected, on the off chance that I may not have an opportunity to speak to them.

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is right to draw my attention to those important amendments. I have to make a decision. There are 32 new clauses and amendments in this group. If we decided to give ourselves just 15 minutes for Third Reading of this important Bill—the last Minister at the Dispatch Box, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, said that it was an important Bill—we would have less than one minute per amendment. We cannot go down that avenue of debate again, but that is the difficulty that I face: less than one minute per amendment to try to explain a complex subject.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I made the point at an early stage of the proceedings, but what my right hon. Friend said underlines it. We once fought a civil war because the Government, for the collection of ship money, were prepared to break into people's homes. We now have one minute per amendment to discuss an important matter. That is outrageous.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman need not concern himself about that. It is not the matter before us.

Mr. Maclean: There is a part of the clause which gives the authorised officer the right to break into people's homes, not for ship money but for additional protocol information. [Interruption.] Ship money—I said it very carefully.
The Bill, as drafted, gives the authorised officer the power to
take with him such other persons,
but we have no information from the Minister about who those persons may be. They may be assistants. I assume that some of them may be technologists, and some may be computer boffins to decode the encrypted messages on the computer. Others may be nuclear installation-type experts.
The authorised officer is also allowed to take such equipment as appears to him necessary. I could understand taking equipment if there was reason to believe that, in addition to nuclear information, there was some fissile material or radioactive material on the premises. Perhaps the equipment refers simply to cameras to photograph information, or additional computers to type up reports as the search proceeds. We do not have that information, and we need to be told.
The Bill rightly allows the authorised officer to inspect anything found on the premises, once he has got in there, and rightly he has the powers to order that stuff on the computer be turned into an accessible form. No doubt a penalty is available if someone refuses to decrypt the information.
The next subsection particularly concerns me, and that is where my new clause becomes relevant. I have tried to redraft subsection (6), bearing in mind that our authorised officer has gone to the court, to the JP, through all that palaver, which he does not find too a big a hassle, and he has his warrant on oath, giving him the power to search premises. He can take with him a constable, who may enter the premises under the authority of a warrant.
The constable may—I note the permissive word "may"—
give such assistance as an authorised officer may request for the purpose of facilitating the exercise of any power under this section;
furthermore, the constable may
search or cause to be searched any person on the premises who the constable has reasonable cause to believe may have in his possession any document or other thing—
that is, additional protocol information.
Subsection (7) goes on to state:
No constable shall, by virtue of subsection (6)(b)—
which I have just quoted—
search a person of the opposite sex.
Concern was expressed during the brief Second Reading debate which the Government graciously allowed us to hold in the House for a few hours one night, before ruthlessly closing down the Bill. There was a brief debate on the dangers and the problems that would arise when a constable had to conduct a body search, a strip search or an intimate search of a person of the opposite sex.
My new clause attempts to deal with that problem, give the Bill coherence and put it in the framework of existing PACE—Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—rules. It is a pity that the much more detailed new schedule tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, on strip searching and intimate body searching, was not selected. He could no doubt expatiate at length on the technicalities, but that is not a route that we shall go down tonight.

Mr. John Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend allow me?

Mr. Maclean: Yes, provided that the intervention is not on my right hon. Friend's intimate searching schedule.

Mr. Bercow: It is not. I applaud the purport of my right hon. Friend's new clause 1, but would not the reference in subsection (2) to
a police constable of any sex
be better replaced by a reference to a police constable of either sex?

Mr. Maclean: Ah! My hon. Friend may be working under the assumption that that is a grammatical or typographical error. In a new spirit which emanates from the Home Office and encompasses the police service, I am trying not to cause offence to any officer. These days

we might have a male officer or a female officer, and it is just possible that there may be a police officer of any sex.

Mr. Bercow: Indeterminate sex.

Mr. Maclean: Indeed. I would not wish to be accused of being institutionally gender prejudiced, or whatever the derogatory term may be.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Androgynyphobic.

Mr. Maclean: That was a helpful intervention from a sedentary position—we shall have the benefit of reading it in Hansard with the correct spelling tomorrow.
I have explained the context of the amendments. Hon. Members and those who follow our debate carefully can now appreciate the purpose of new clauses 1 and 3 and my attempt to give greater coherence to the Bill. The new clauses also deal with the problem of the ability of officers of either, any or indeterminate sex—or even both, which I once came across in forensic medicine—to search people of a similar nature, or who are similarly equipped or attired.
In new clause 3, I work from the assumption that the Government believe that it is acceptable for an authorised officer to go through the palaver of applying to a justice of the peace to get a warrant to enter premises. One could have a debate—the other place held one—on clause 5, which grants foreign agency inspectors the right to march into premises without a warrant. However, we are debating not clause 5 but clause 4, which deals with a British official, the "authorised officer". He has to surmount the hurdle of obtaining a warrant from a JP to enter premises.
If the Government are willing to make an authorised officer jump over the hurdle of getting a warrant from a JP, I propose another small hurdle or sub-hurdle. If the authorised officer meets resistance, he should obtain a second warrant, which new clause 3 describes as the "forcible entry warrant". In most cases when an authorised officer enters the premises, he will not meet resistance. If he arrives at "any reasonable hour"—I hope we shall have time to debate the amendments that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst tabled on that—"within one month", I assume that the people on the premises will open their doors and voluntarily allow the authorised person to enter.
Let us suppose that the authorised person meets resistance and that the people on the premises deny him entry. The Bill provides for the authorised officer to use force, if necessary. How can he do that? Can he do it himself? That is a grey area. We all assume that the constable will exercise the force. However, the constable may not be empowered; the officer may not have brought the constable with him. The Bill does not state that in all circumstances in which an authorised officer is given the right of entry, he has to take a police officer with him.
Perhaps the authorised officer will take a constable with him in unusual circumstances; perhaps he will take a bobby with him as a matter of course when he has obtained a warrant, to deal with possible resistance. However, the Bill does not provide for that. Even when a constable accompanies the authorised officer—if he is


asked to do that—the constable has the discretion to refuse to use his powers if he does not wish to do so. The constable "may" assist, if necessary.
New clause 3 tries to clarify and change the position. When the authorised officer knocks on the door, and people refuse to answer, the new clause provides for him to return immediately to the court and obtain a forcible entry warrant. That empowers the constable to use the necessary force to gain entry. Is not that a better system? Is not that more in keeping with our British view of justice and forcible entry into premises? If a police constable—not an authorised officer from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions or the Nuclear Safeguards Authority or an agency—knocks on the door, he can say, "It's not an inspector this time, chummy. It's me and the police service. Here's a warrant for forcible entry." If he is refused, the officer can then use force.

Mr. Paul Keetch: I am trying to understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. How would he secure the premises between the time when the first hurdle had been attempted and the police officer took the second hurdle? How would the right hon. Gentleman ensure that any material that warranted the inspection was not removed from the premises in the meantime?

Mr. Maclean: The authorised officer would encounter that problem when he got his first warrant. He must get a warrant to enter the premises. I assume that people who have nuclear material or information are so clever and dangerous that, if they wished to thwart the entry of an authorised officer, they would do it from stage one. Perhaps the material will be encrypted, and the officers will not get their hands on it. The fact that the authorised officer has to fetch a police officer and return with a warrant a couple of hours later is not fatal to the successful raiding of the premises. The people who will try to frustrate the measure know that an authorised officer will try to raid their premises.

Mr. Keetch: Does the right hon. Gentleman presume that a company in, for example, Penrith or Hereford, will have been told about the initial warrant?

Mr. Maclean: I work on the assumption that even if the company has not been told, it will know about it. The Bill does not provide that when an authorised officer applies for a warrant on oath, the people whose premises he wishes to enter must be informed. I did not spot that in the measure. Such a provision may be built into the Bill. If not, the court will grant a warrant to the authorised officers without informing the people whose premises will be inspected. We are not considering petty crooks who will be taken by surprise by a sudden police raid and found with the incriminating stuff on them.
The premises that are to be raided will belong to those who are involved in the nuclear industry and have some information that is regarded as additional protocol information. If they do not expect a visit from the authorised officers when the Bill is passed, they will be poor at their jobs, or at least their criminality.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Dr. Kim Howells): The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He makes an analogy with what he describes as petty criminals. He knows that the powers we are considering are last resort measures. They would be used only in circumstances of, for example, suspicion that someone was selling nuclear material to a country such as Iraq. Does he believe that it is less urgent to obtain forcible entry when all other approaches have been refused than when, for example, the police carry out a drugs raid? The illicit sale of nuclear material is at least as important.

Mr. Maclean: Of course it is. However, why does not the Minister redraft the Bill to place the powers of forcible entry clearly in the hands of the constable and of the police service rather than the authorised officer? The Bill provides simply that the constable may assist if necessary. The Minister grants the powers to break into people's property to an authorised officer. Without straying from the path and considering clause 5 in detail, if the Minister is so proud of the provisions whereby an authorised officer applies to a justice of the peace, I hope that he will extend that to clause 5 and make the agency inspector approach a JP. Agency inspectors can enter any premises anywhere without a warrant from a JP.

Mr. Bercow: Forcible entry is important, but so too is the activity that might follow. Does my right hon. Friend seriously propose in new clause 3(4)(c) that individuals who are subject to a search should automatically be deprived permanently of their property, or does he concede that they should have the opportunity under new clause 3 to make representations about having the property returned to them?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes another good point; I am dealing with new clause 3 subsection by subsection, but can jump ahead a couple to deal with it. I tried to replicate in new clause 3(4) the main provisions that the Government have included in clauses 4 and 5. I did not want to build in any other concepts which they might say were different from what they want to achieve and therefore unacceptable. The wording that I use in subsection (4)(a), (b) and (c) is identical, or almost identical, to that used by the Government.
I accept the difficulty that the officer could severely disadvantage a business were he wrongly
to copy, or to seize and remove, any document or other thing which he has reasonable cause to believe is something which contains Additional Protocol information.
Taking the whole computer to de-encrypt or decode it, to search the hard drive or to take it to bits, and taking other equipment such as machinery or documents could seriously affect the financial ability of the business and there would be no redress. We could explore such matters if we had more time.

Mr. Richard Page: I am slightly curious, as my right hon. Friend seems to have formed an alliance with the Minister. New clause 3 refers to gaining entry at reasonable hours. Given that the Minister said that illegal fissionable material might be held in a premises, surely breaking in only in authorised or legitimate hours is unduly generous. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst


(Mr. Forth) tackles that point sensibly in amendment No. 9. I should find it hard to support new clause 3 unless my right hon. Friend explains the fundamental weakness that it contains.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. If I had an opportunity, I would advise the House to vote for my new clause, as it would be amended by the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I am not the complete parliamentary draftsman's department, nor is my right hon. Friend; he was no doubt looking at the Bill's flaws and tabling amendments that he thought would improve it. I saw what I considered to be the major flaw in clauses 4 and 5, and new clauses 1 and 3 are attempts to redraft those clauses to introduce the concept of the forcible entry warrant and to clarify the rights of searching persons.
The easiest way to draft new clause 3 was to replicate some of the provisions that the Government have included in clause 4, even though I dislike some of them, and include the term "at any reasonable hour". I assumed that there would be a separate debate and that a change could be made in due course.

Mr. Forth: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not skip lightly over new clause 3(4)(b). My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) seduced him into referring to subsection (4)(c). Will my right hon. Friend, who is a famous e-person, explain to me how anyone will know that information is held electronically, how it will be accessible from the premises and how it will be produced in a form that can be read and copied? I know nothing about e-things and care less, and I am at a loss to understand how the constable making a forcible entry will know what—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That intervention is too long.

Mr. Maclean: I have picked up the general thrust of my right hon. Friend's intervention. Again, he makes a valid point, with which we wrestled for a considerable time in Committee during proceedings on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. There is no doubt that if a person holds all that information in encrypted form, but refuses to produce the key, the Home Secretary can serve another warrant. Alternatively, inspectors and other officials may have the power to order that the encryption key be handed over, in which case, if the person complies, the authorised officer can use the encryption key, decode the computer and retrieve all the information that it contains, which may or may not be relevant. If the person refuses to hand over the encryption key, there is a maximum two-year sentence.
A difficulty may arise if the person with the computer says that he will hand over the information, but then issues the officers with what he claims to be all the information on his computer. However, other stuff may be hidden on a separate drive. I would not wish to stray, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have owned a laptop computer for two years. I became rather vexed two weeks ago as, although it is supposed to have a 1.2 gigabyte drive, it was chock-a-block. I could not figure out what was wrong until I suddenly discovered that it had two other drives—a C drive and a D drive—as well as an E drive for

compact discs. The computer that I had used assiduously for two years and on which I had produced information in electronic form had two other drives.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the debate is time limited and other Members wish to speak. We cannot go into his computer problems.

Mr. Maclean: Like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am vexed that the debate is time limited.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not vexed; I have no problem one way or the other.

Mr. Maclean: I, too, will try to relax and remain in order.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Keetch: rose—

Mr. Maclean: I shall give way in a moment.
I did not intend to discuss my computer. However, I included subsection (4)(b) in new clause 3 because information can be hidden in electronic form, just as it was hidden on my ruddy computer. No doubt the constable and the authorised officers will have greater scientific and computer knowledge, so they will be able to extract all the relevant e-information.

Mr. Keetch: Now that we have discovered that, in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, new clause 3 is worthy of debate only in relation to amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and given that those amendments will not come before the House, does he still advise us to support it?

Mr. Maclean: I do not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman. I did not want to suggest that new clause 3 is worth debating or supporting only if amendment No. 9, which was tabled by right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, is accepted.

Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) has made a helpful intervention. Will it be possible for the House to divide twice at the end of the debate—first, on new clause 3 and, secondly, on amendment No. 9—given that my right hon. Friend says that new clause 3 could be amended?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is possible, but it depends on when the Division takes place.

Mr. Maclean: That is helpful guidance and during the next few minutes I shall consider the best route to take.
New clause 3 has considerable merit as it stands. Admittedly, my hon. Friends might not like aspects of subsection (4), but nevertheless the House should support the concept of the forcible entry warrant.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend defends new clause 3 on the ground that, although imperfect, it represents a


substantial improvement to the Bill. Is he satisfied that new clause 3 conforms to the European convention on human rights, which we could not possibly consider breaching given our attacks on the Government on that point?

Mr. Maclean: I do not have access to the Attorney-General or others who may wish to consult great European organs such as the European Court of Human Rights to determine whether the Bill satisfies the convention, but as the Government say that clause 4 will satisfy it, I am certain that new clause 3 has an even better chance of doing so because it includes an additional safeguard to defend the freedom of the individual from having his premises forcibly entered by an authorised officer.
7.30 pm
I have included another important concept in new clause 3. It would ensure that a police constable who enters a premises could do only what he considers to be absolutely lawful and essential to help the authorised officer. At present, the Bill provides for a constable to
give such assistance as an authorised officer may request.
What if the authorised officer requests illegal assistance? What if the authorised officer says to the police constable, "Arrest that person", or gives the police constable an order, and the constable concludes that he has no authority under United Kingdom law to do what he is being told to do? In that event, the authority would consist of the fact that an authorised officer had asked the constable to commit an illegal act.
Let me give another hypothetical example. Let us suppose that the authorised officer says, "Take that person's fingerprints", or tells the constable to make an immediate search or take a sample without reading the person concerned his rights. I assume that in such circumstances the constable would say, "I am sorry, but I will not do that. Under British law I cannot take a sample. I cannot give you that help; I cannot arrest that person, who has not committed a crime known to man." The constable's only defence—the only basis for his right to do that—would be the fact that he was obeying the orders of the authorised officer.
That would put the police constable in an invidious position. It would force him to say to an authorised officer, "I am sorry, but I am disobeying you. I will not do what you say, because in my opinion what you are asking me to do is contrary to the rules of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, contrary to Standing Orders and contrary to the law of the land. But for the fact that you have the right to order me to do it, I would not do it, because it is illegal."
My revised version of the wording in new clause 3 says:
A constable who enters premises under authority of a warrant…may…give assistance to the authorised officer to prevent interference with him carrying out his duties…and…may assist in searching the premises.
I am restricting the rights of the constable to merely giving assistance to prevent the authorised officer from being interfered with or obstructed.

Mr. Bercow: That is defensive.

Mr. Maclean: Yes, it is a defensive provision, and it is a much narrower provision than that allowing the constable to
give such assistance as an authorised officer may request.
That, I think, leaves the position far too wide open. It gives carte blanche.
New clause 1 states:
Where a police constable has entered premises under authority of a warrant
the new forcible entry warrant that I have just described—
and has reasonable cause to believe that Additional Protocol information is secreted in or on the body of a person or persons on the premises he may conduct a non-intimate body search of the person or persons.
That surely makes the position much clearer than the skimpy lines in the Bill telling us that a constable may
search or cause to be searched any person on the premises who the constable has reasonable cause to believe may have…any document or other thing
and that
No constable shall…search a person of the opposite sex.
My new clause places the onus on the constable to conclude that there is
Additional Protocol information…in or on the body of the person or persons
before conducting a non-intimate body search.
Subsection (2) of the new clause describes that search. It states:
When a constable has formed the belief in subsection (1)
the belief that I have just described—
he may order the person or persons to remove any outer coat and hat which may be then searched by a police constable of any sex.
The non-intimate body search would be restricted to ordering a person to remove outer clothing such as a hat or coat. That would be followed by the normal "pat-down" body search.

Mr. Forth: Notwithstanding my right hon. Friend's enormous experience of these matters, how does he expect an effective search to be made if the hat and coat are removed, but footwear is left intact? I should have thought that things could be hidden in shoes.

Mr. Maclean: That is perfectly possible, but I refer my right hon. Friend to subsection (4). As one who has, in a past life, conducted body searches at airports and other premises, I do have considerable experience of these matters, and I am happy to advise the Government, free and gratis. Subsection (4) states:
If a constable conducting the body search in subsection (3) above is of the opinion that Additional Protocol information can only be discovered by an intimate body search of the person or persons being searched then he shall inform the person or persons that he is of that opinion.
If the person concerned does not then produce the information voluntarily—from that person's body, from the footwear, or from any other article of clothing closer to the person's body than an outer coat or hat—the person can be arrested and taken to a police station for an intimate body search.

Mr. Forth: Ah!

Mr. Maclean: The intimate body search, which, under my new clause, would be conducted by a qualified


medical practitioner, would encompass body orifices. The police do not normally consider the mouth to be intimate nowadays, but all other parts of the body could be searched by a qualified medical practitioner at a police station. In the course of that, clothing would be removed and could be searched, and anything secreted in boots or socks would also be discovered.
I consider it an important protection for members of the public for the right to conduct strip-down or intimate body searches to be given to authorised officers or police constables who would turn up and conduct searches at the scene. I think it right to clarify this area of the law. I invite the Minister to consider the—I must confess—much better proposals tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, which set out in intimate detail, indeed excruciating detail, how to conduct proper body searches.

Dr. Howells: As an expert on laptops and CDs, the right hon. Gentleman will know that any such information would almost certainly be contained on floppy disks or CDs. Can he tell us in which orifice he thinks they would be secreted?

Mr. Maclean: I can certainly think of Labour Members who could hold a CD in their mouths without too much difficulty. [Laughter.] The Minister must admit that he set that one up.

Mr. Bercow: Some of us are less concerned about the intimacy of the body search than about the sex of the person undertaking it. I am thinking of subsection (5) of new clause 1. Would my right hon. Friend grant the person to be searched the right to specify that the medical practitioner should not be of the same sex as him or her?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I pointed out that we should make allowance on the off chance for the existence of a police constable of "any sex", or indeterminate sex, or none. Similarly, I accept that there can be some pretty odd doctors about. That should produce a few more letters in the postbag.

Mr. Leigh: There has been some merriment at this point, but time is running out. I hope my right hon. Friend will make the serious point that, if the new clauses and amendments are not passed, for almost the first time in our history a civil servant will be able, without the express authority of the court, to break into someone's home. That is not a laughing matter; it is a very serious matter, and the new clauses and amendments are very important.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right.
I dealt first with new clause 3, which contains important powers relating to the forcible entry warrant, because I thought it helpful to deal with it before coming to the searching of persons. That seemed a logical step. Inevitably, when the House starts discussing the searching of people and bodies, some see cause for merriment. There has been legitimate scope for that on every Committee on which I have served when Ministers have tabled clauses of this nature. Let us face it: it will be a poor day when the House takes itself too seriously about everything.
There may be legitimate scope for merriment in new clause 1, if we do not get it right. Nevertheless, the underlying thrust of the new clauses is an attempt to tighten parts of the Bill that I think can be tightened without the Government's being caused any difficulty.
If Madam Speaker had selected amendments to clause 5 to make an agency inspector get a warrant, the Government would rightly say, "Can't do that. It's totally contrary to what we've agreed. We've signed an international agreement. You're asking us to change something that we've signed up to as a Government. Can't be done." We are not asking the Government to do that. They are happy for an authorised officer to go to a justice of the peace to obtain a warrant under clause 4. They are happy that, in slightly grey and indeterminate circumstances, a police constable may accompany that officer. We are not sure what would happen if the police superintendent running the basic command unit refused and said, "I've more to do with my bobbies than to send them with your inspectors to raid premises looking for nuclear material." He may refuse, or he may decide that it is important and allocate officers, go himself or send an inspector. Joint police co-operation is a grey area and needs to be clarified.
In new clause 1, I have tried to clarify searching, which is also a grey area. The Government's clause on searching is so narrow as to be meaningless. Searching people of the opposite sex is a grey area. I think that I know where the Government are coming from. I know what powers they want to build into the legislation. I suggest that my new clause 1 is an improvement.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will want to argue passionately for his amendment to miss out "any reasonable hour". I would not resist that amendment, and would happily vote for it.

It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of proceedings to be concluded at that hour.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Pope.]

The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 2.

Division No. 202]
[7.42 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bennett, Andrew F


Alexander, Douglas
Bermingham, Gerald


Allen, Graham
Berry, Roger


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Betts, Clive


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Blackman, Liz


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Blears, Ms Hazel


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Blizzard, Bob


Ashton, Joe
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Atkins, Charlotte
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Austin, John
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Banks, Tony
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Barnes, Harry
Bradshaw, Ben


Bayley, Hugh
Breed, Colin


Beard, Nigel
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Browne, Desmond


Begg, Miss Anne
Burden, Richard


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Burgon, Colin


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Butler, Mrs Christine


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard






Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Grocott, Bruce



Grogan, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hain, Peter


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Cann, Jamie
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Caplin, Ivor
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Casale, Roger
Harvey, Nick


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clapham, Michael
Healey, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)



Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hesford, Stephen


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hill, Keith


Clelland, David
Hinchliffe, David


Clwyd, Ann
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Coaker, Vernon
Hope, Phil


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Coleman, Iain
Howells, Dr Kim


Colman, Tony
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Corbett, Robin
Hurst, Alan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hutton, John


Cotter, Brian
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cousins, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Crausby, David
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cryer, John (Hornhurch)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cummings, John
Jenkins, Brian


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Darvill, Keith
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)



Davidson, Ian
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dean, Mrs Janet



Denham, John
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Doran, Frank
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Dowd, Jim
Keeble, Ms Sally


Drew, David
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Keetch, Paul


Edwards, Huw
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Efford, Clive
Khabra, Piara S


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kidney, David


Ennis, Jeff
Kilfoyle, Peter


Etherington, Bill
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fearn, Ronnie
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kingham, Ms Tess


Fisher, Mark
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Laxton, Bob


Flint, Caroline
Lepper, David


Flynn, Paul
Levitt, Tom


Follett, Barbara
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Fyfe, Maria
Linton, Martin


Galloway, George
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Lock, David


Gerrard, Neil
McAvoy, Thomas


Gidley, Sandra
McCabe, Steve


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Godman, Dr Norman A
McDonagh, Siobhain


Godsiff, Roger
Macdonald, Calum


Goggins, Paul
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Golding, Mrs Llin
McIsaac, Shona


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gorrie, Donald
Mackinlay, Andrew


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McNulty, Tony


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
MacShane, Denis





Mactaggart, Fiona
Sedgemore, Brian


McWalter, Tony
Shaw, Jonathan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mallaber, Judy
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Singh, Marsha


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Martlew, Eric



Maxton, John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Merron, Gillian
Soley, Clive


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mitchell, Austin
Steinberg, Gerry


Moffatt, Laura
Stevenson, George


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morley, Elliot
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stoate, Dr Howard



Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack



Stringer, Graham


Mountford, Kali
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mudie, George
Stunell, Andrew


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Norris, Dan
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)



O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


O'Neill, Martin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Organ, Mrs Diana
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pearson, Ian
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Pendry, Tom
Timms, Stephen


Perham, Ms Linda
Tipping, Paddy


Pickthall, Colin
Todd, Mark


Pike, Peter L
Trickett, Jon


Plaskitt, James
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pond, Chris
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pope, Greg
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Pound, Stephen
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Tyler, Paul


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tynan, Paul


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Tynan, Bill


Primarolo, Dawn
Vis, Dr Rudi


Prosser, Gwyn
Walley, Ms Joan


Purchase, Ken
Ward, Ms Claire


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Wareing, Robert N


Quinn, Lawrie
Watts, David


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Webb, Steve


Rammell, Bill
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Rapson, Syd
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Raynsford, Nick



Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rendel, David
Willis, Phil


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wilson, Brian


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Winnick, David


Rooney, Terry
Wood, Mike


Rowlands, Ted
Woolas, Phil


Roy, Frank
Worthington, Tony


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wray, James


Salter, Martin
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Sanders, Adrian
Wyatt, Derek


Sarwar, Mohammad



Savidge, Malcolm
Tellers for the Ayes:



Mr. David Jamieson and



Mr. Don Touhig.


NOES


Paterson, Owen
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilkinson, John
Mr. Eric Forth and



Mr. Edward Leigh.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill

Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Order for Third Reading read.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill is short and straightforward. It is a very narrow Bill, but it has a complex legal background. Its purpose is to ensure the validity of charges that were levied by the Sea Fish Industry Authority between 1 October 1981 and 3 May 1996 in connection with its administration of grant schemes under the Fisheries Act 1981. It also applies to the validity of charges that were made by the authority's predecessor, the Herring Industry Board, between March 1972 and October 1981.
The charges covered the costs incurred by the bodies' surveyors in inspecting a vessel at the application stage to check on what work was needed, including examination of technical specifications and plans and inspection on completion of work, so that the surveyor could satisfy himself that the work had been carried out properly. Those charges were ended in 1996.
A couple of points were raised in Committee that I should mention. I was pressed to publish the legal advice that the Government had received—or a précis of it—which led the Government to introduce the Bill. I tried to be as open with the Committee as I possibly could be. A note on the legal background to the Bill was sent to all Committee members and placed in the Library of the House. That gives a full explanation of the legal reasoning, even though it is not quite the legal advice, because of the precedent that Governments have always followed. I shall not go into the details of that legal advice as I did so in Committee.
There was concern that no reference was made in the Sea Fish Industry Authority's accounts to the liability to repay charges. The authority's auditors were aware of the potential liability and made inquiries in 1996 as to how that should be addressed in the accounts. They were advised by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that it would not be appropriate to make any reference while issues about legality were still being examined and no decision had been taken on whether validating legislation should be introduced. It was also unclear as to who—Ministers or the SFIA—would have responsibility for any liability arising should it be concluded that the charges were more likely than not to have been unlawfully levied.
The auditors raised the point again the following year. The authority sought a letter of comfort from the Ministry saying that, if it was concluded that there should be a refund of technical charges, responsibility for payment would rest with the Ministry. It was explained that that would not be appropriate because such a letter would require specific Treasury and parliamentary approval, and because the legal issues were still under review.
Once the decision had been taken that the Government should seek to legislate to validate the charges retrospectively as soon as parliamentary time allowed, the likelihood of any contingent liability having to be met was largely removed. Therefore, it was not seen as appropriate to mention it in the accounts.
I stress a number of points that were made earlier in considering the Bill. It is not a vehicle for introducing financial assistance to the fisheries industry; the Government are making a bid for that under structural funds.

Mr. Eric Forth: Is the Minister saying that the authority was advised that, on the assumption that the legislation that we are discussing would pass through all its stages in Parliament and receive Royal Assent, it was inappropriate to mention those items in the accounts? That seems a little previous, to put it mildly. Is there not, then, a danger of a gap between the giving of that advice and possible Royal Assent to the Bill?

Mr. Morley: No, the advice was not based on the assumption that the right hon. Gentleman mentions. A decision had to be made in relation to liability and how it was to be dealt with. The legal advice was that the most appropriate way of dealing with it was through such a Bill being put to Parliament.
As soon as lawyers concluded that, in all probability, the technical charge did not have a statutory basis, the SFIA was told to put a stop to it. The Ministry wrote to the SFIA on 3 May 1996 confirming the instruction given over the phone that day to cease levying the charge immediately. At that time, it was, of course, already well aware of the existence of concerns.
It was subsequently decided that the charge should not be reintroduced as the nature of the grant scheme had changed and much less technical work was involved in processing applications. The Bill does not, therefore, authorise the making of any future charges and is limited to charges levied up to 3 May 1996.
The charge concerned was a reasonable one in relation to the work that was carried out. It has never been challenged by anyone and no complaints about the charge have ever been received. I thank all the members of the Committee for dealing with what is a narrow and technical measure so speedily. I especially thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) for his able chairmanship of the Committee.

Mr. Andrew George: I think that the House and those who follow the interests of the fishing industry will be disappointed that, as the Minister said, the Bill will not and should not be a vehicle to debate the necessary reintroduction of fishing safety grants.

Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. A few moments ago, in his opening speech, the Minister said that a note on the legal advice that the Government had received on the Bill had been provided to Committee members and that a copy of it had been deposited in the Library. Are you aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Library is unable to locate the said note? Should we not be provided with it as a matter of urgency and before the debate continues?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I certainly shall not suspend the sitting. Those are not matters for the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Edward Leigh: rose—

Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister himself raised as a matter material


to this debate on Third Reading that the legal advice was available to hon. Members in the Library. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has just checked with the Library, but the advice is not available. Therefore, progress of the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he is talking about a ministerial responsibility. It is nothing to do with the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have made that ruling, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue the matter.

Mr. Leigh: May I just ask a question, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Of course—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are no more questions to be asked on the matter. I shall take points of order, but not questions. I do not think that we should pursue the matter, which is for the Minister deal with.

Mr. George: As I was saying, the House will be disappointed that the Bill was not regarded as an opportunity for debate of the matter and as a vehicle for the reintroduction of fishing safety grants.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. George: I shall finish my point, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
The matters are deeply important to the industry, and the sooner they are attended to, the better. I am sure that the Minister will accept that.

Mr. Leigh: Because of timetabling, we have only 40 minutes to discuss the Bill. The Minister is in the Chamber. He could intervene now and say that he will ensure that that legal advice is provided to the House before we finish the debate. [Interruption.] Will the hon. Gentleman, in his speech, try to convince the Minister to provide the legal advice to us now? The Minister said that it is in the Library, but it is not.

Mr. George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. As I was a member of the Committee considering this very important matter, I was a beneficiary of the legal advice, for which I am grateful to the Minister.

Mr. Morley: I may be able to clarify the matter. However, I should first correct hon. Members who are talking about legal advice—I was talking about a précis of the legal advice. The convention is that Governments do not reveal the legal advice that they receive. My information is that the précis was placed in the Library, and I am, at this moment, making inquiries about the situation.

Mr. George: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I mentioned legal advice—whereas,

in Committee, I asked him for a précis of it. I am grateful to him for circulating it to Committee members, as he promised to do; it was much appreciated. [Interruption.]

Mr. Bercow: It may come as a shock to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), but some right. hon. and hon. Members think that it is incumbent upon them properly to scrutinise Government legislation. He had better get used to it, because there is much more scrutiny coming.
Does the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) agree that it would be helpful if the Minister would tell the House when he believes that that summary note was deposited in the Library? The admirable and efficient Library staff looked askance at my request for it and were not conscious of the existence in the Library of such a document.

Mr. George: That was not an intervention for me. However, I certainly appreciate the fact that, as the Minister promised, he provided to Committee members a précis of the legal advice, which I should be happy to share with other hon. Members. I am sure that the Minister would not wish to restrict me in doing that.
In our previous consideration of the Bill, on Second Reading and in Committee, I contacted industry representatives both within my constituency and from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to check whether they felt very strongly that hon. Members should table amendments on the matter or that the House should be detained in considering it, to make certain that important legislation is properly scrutinised. I think that I can report to the House that the general feeling in the industry is that the Bill should be passed without unnecessary delay, as it is not causing vexation within the industry.
In his speech, the Minister made a point about the Sea Fish Industry Authority not mentioning the problem in its annual report. In Committee, he said:
However, it was not thought appropriate to make any reference to it, as no decision had been made at that time about how to deal with the issue.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 14 March 2000; c. 16.]
Similarly, in a promised reply on the matter to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), the Minister wrote:
This view would be consistent with "Statement of Standard Accounting Practice 18" and its successor "Financial Reporting Standard 12" which provide that in those cases where the probability of the ultimate outcome having a material effect on the financial statements (ie those of SFIA in this case) is remote, no disclosure of the contingent liability is required in the accounts.
I think that anyone considering the matter, which involves a £7 million liability, would agree that it is a matter of public interest, and that those very guidance documents themselves have to be reviewed. It is a matter of public concern. I think that most people are surprised that the SFIA—no doubt after negotiating with Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials—did not feel that it was appropriate to refer to the matter in its 1996 annual report.

Mr. David Heath: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that, although it was very helpful to receive the Minister's letter, the response—that it was considered to be "too remote a possibility" to


warrant inclusion in the annual report and accounts—was quite extraordinary. If the possibility really were so remote, is it not rather surprising that we are debating legislation to deal with it? I think that the charges should have been in the annual report and accounts, and I am very surprised that the advice to Ministers was otherwise.

Mr. George: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for endorsing the line that I am taking. Perhaps Ministers and officials should reflect on the lessons to be learned from this rather shabby affair. I think that the Minister fully admits that mistakes were made and identified in 1996, before the Government came into office. I should hope, therefore, that he will be able to take an objective view of the matter, and perhaps to accept the fact that—in the light of an unacceptable failure to report something that really should have been in the public domain—both accounting practices and the responsibility of Government organisations should be reviewed.
As for the legislation's retrospective nature, perhaps we should have an opportunity retrospectively to review the success of safety grants, which are very important to the industry itself. Perhaps we shall have another opportunity to debate that matter—which I think the Minister will accept is of very deep concern to the industry. Indeed, the unacceptable loss of life in the industry deeply concerns fishing communities around the coast of the United Kingdom. I should hope that we will have an opportunity for such a debate, perhaps in Government time, in the not-too-distant future.
As I said, I asked the Minister to circulate a précis of the legal advice. However, having seen it I am surprised that it took until the Bill was considered in Committee before we could prise that information out of the Minister. The information helped to support his line, which I think we all accepted, that, with the Government's heavily clogged legislative programme, he would not unnecessarily—purely for the sheer hell of it—introduce new legislation. The précis of the legal advice could have been provided earlier. That said, I am grateful to have it, even though we received it rather late.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have no objection to ensuring that this important Bill concludes its stages in the House this evening.

Mr. Eric Forth: The more that we hear of the Bill, the more obvious it is that it is a bit of a muddle. It started out as a cosy little consensual matter that was sold to the House as being of little import and almost rather trivial. It was one of those dubious measures that had all-party agreement. Now even the Liberal Democrats—the friends of the Government—have some doubts, although some intimate correspondence has obviously passed between the Minister and his friends in the Liberal Democrat party from which the rest of us have been excluded, because the relevant document is apparently not in the Library. I shall come back to that in a moment.
In one of his moments of transparency and insight in Committee, the Minister said:
The Bill is retrospective. As I said on Second Reading, the Government do not take lightly the introduction of retrospective legislation.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 14 March 2000; c. 4.]

That point has dogged the Bill from the start. In fairness to the Government, they have made no secret of the fact that it was retrospective, but, as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) has just said, the argument is whether retrospective legislation is justified to solve a problem that may not have existed. Even now we have not got to the bottom of that. I certainly have not, because I have not yet seen the note on the legal advice that the members of the Committee have seen, but that is not yet in the Library as the Minister claimed that it was. The rest of us who were not on the Committee are in the dark about the content of the note.

Mr. Bercow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Minister's letter to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), together with the accompanying paper, was dispatched on 2 May? In that letter, the Minister said that he was arranging for a copy of the note to be placed in the Library. Can my right hon. Friend think of any good reason why 20 days should elapse without that flimsy little note being deposited in the Library?

Mr. Forth: Yes; Government incompetence comes at the top of my list. That is the most obvious explanation. Conspiracy would be second on my list. The Minister wants to appear, on the record, to be open with the House, but on the slightest investigation that appears to be a false impression.

Mr. Leigh: It is worse than that. I have obtained a copy of the letter in question—not from the Library, but from my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) on the Front Bench. The Minister said in the letter that he had arranged—not that he was arranging—for a copy to be placed in the Library. That was on 2 May. What is going on?

Mr. Forth: We must get to the bottom of that. I shall come back to the issue when a little more time has elapsed. We shall see whether the letter emerges from the Library. For the moment, I want to go on to some other serious matters that arose during the previous proceedings on the Bill.
The Minister has revealed something else relatively new to us today. I suspect that the issue was preying on his and his officials' minds and he thought that he had better get it out in the open before it was revealed in some other way, although the more that I look at the Bill and the more that we consider it on Third Reading, the more I suspect that it will need to be examined pretty closely in another place. We may be forced to accept retrospection, but I do not know whether it will go down well at the other end of the building.
As far as I could follow him, the Minister seemed to say that there had been a running debate between the Sea Fish Industry Authority and its auditors about its accounts and whether the charges should be reflected. He then appeared to say that the matter was regarded as being in suspension in some way, pending legal advice. When the legal advice finally emerged, the Minister said, as far as I could tell, that because the matter should be legislated on, there was no need to act on the accounts. I thought that he then said that any need to reflect the matter in the accounts, about which the auditors had previously expressed disquiet, was rendered otiose by the legislation.
That worried me, because it seemed to imply that the auditors, the authority or the Ministry—or all of them—had satisfied themselves that, on the possibility of legislation reaching its final stage and receiving Royal Assent, no further action need be taken. I suspect that if the matter were looked at in more detail than we can manage this evening, because of the Government's vicious and arrogant guillotine, a worrying lacuna would emerge. We are dealing with public finance, the auditing of accounts and the relationship between a Government Department dispensing taxpayers' money and a Government agency—the Sea Fish Industry Authority—spending that money. That should be above suspicion, but it appears that there has been a certain amount of foot dragging, to say the least, and that the relationship between the authority, its auditors and the Department was either overly cosy, overly mutually congratulatory or less than rigorous—I put it no more strongly than that.

Mr. David Heath: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman suggests that that lacuna might appear this evening on further consideration when it clearly appeared in Committee, when we laid bare the deficiencies of the audit process—[Interruption.]

Mr. Forth: Not bare enough, as I think one of my hon. Friends behind me said. I have looked at the Committee proceedings, and pretty flimsy and slender they are, because the Minister pulled the same trick on the Committee that he tried to pull on the House tonight—because he said over and over again that the Bill was a narrow and technical measure, he thought he could escape effective scrutiny. That has happened throughout. The Liberal Democrats have obviously fallen for that—if I may use the expression—hook, line and sinker! I have been waiting to say that for some time.
The Bill turns out to be not narrow and technical, but retrospective. It seeks to cover up a gap in the accounting practices that has existed for some time and was sufficient to worry the auditors, which in turn was sufficient for officials to want to put it in the Minister's speech this evening to try to pre-empt the sort of investigation that the House would normally want to conduct. We are now unable to conduct such an investigation because the Government have guillotined the Bill.
A very worrying pattern is beginning to emerge. I was unable to take part in the guillotine debate because so many of my colleagues were so angry about the motion that I was elbowed out of it. In that debate, my hon. Friends asked why on earth the Government saw fit to guillotine this innocent little Bill—as it was thought at the time—of all Bills. Belatedly, in this guillotined Third Reading debate, the truth is beginning to emerge. The Government are desperate that the matter should not be looked at properly. They skated through the Committee stage on the basis that the Bill was narrow and technical. The Liberal Democrats were easily satisfied—as ever they are, I suspect, by their friends in the Government—but we now find that there is a real danger that something very nasty and rather unpleasant is emerging. However, it is too late.

Mr. Andrew George: The right hon. Gentleman is right; something unpleasant is emerging. It was all the fault of the Tories. We thought that we should allow them to get off lightly.

Mr. Forth: I am intrigued that the Liberal Democrats latest political stance seems to be letting the last Tory Government get away with something of which they disapproved. I for one am very much in favour of being critical of the last Conservative Government where that is appropriate, and I do that occasionally. However, that is not the point—which is that the Minister referred earlier to the relationship between the authority, the auditor and the Ministry. As I am not yet in possession of the legal advice, I am unable to take the matter further. The irony is that Committee members, including my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), have the document, but no one else does. The House is unable to make a judgment on the crucial role of that legal advice.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said:
On Second Reading, the Minister was pressed to convey to the House the basis of his legal advice. He declined to do so then, and appears unwilling to do so today.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 14 March 2000; c. 5.]
My hon. Friend pressed the Minister, and only under that pressure did the he finally agree that the House could have a note giving a version of that advice.

Mr. Bercow: I am concerned at the attitude of the Minister and of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George). Did my right hon. Friend notice that the hon. Member for St. Ives, having made a truly risible speech, thought it was funny that my right hon. Friend had not received the note? Despite having ample time to do so, the Minister has still failed to tell the House when exactly the instruction was given for the deposit of the note in the Library and what steps, if any, he took to check that that instruction had been carried out.

Mr. Forth: If I were a suspicious type, I would think that the Minister and his officials were watching the clock, conscious that if they spin this out for another 20 minutes they will get off the hook because the Government guillotine will then fall on the debate. At that point, the House will no longer be able to hold the Government to account. That is a matter of great regret to me, and the Government cannot be allowed to get away with it. I suspect that those in another place will want to take a much more rigorous look at the issues than this House has done hitherto.
The Minister said earlier that there was a question of whether the Government should seek to legislate to remove the contingent liability. That brings another factor into play, and it may be one of the reasons for the Bill. In Committee, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, concerning the Minister,
I still think that there are considerable gaps in his explanation of the advice that he has received about the necessity for these retrospective provisions.
The doubt arose on the narrow point whether a Minister of the Crown had the powers that were delegated to the Sea Fish Industry Authority at the time.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman believes that he has received a satisfactory answer to that. He added that the Minister should share his advice, in whatever form, with the Committee so that it could consider the Bill properly and
advise colleagues in the House who will have to consider it in due course.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 14 March 2000; c. 10.]
The hon. Gentleman—playing the part that he should play—raised an important point in anticipation of Report stage of the Bill. Not only has there been no Report, but Third Reading has been arrogantly reduced to almost nothing. As a result, neither the hon. Gentleman nor I have been able to get an explanation of the legal advice, which has still not appeared.

Mr. Morley: I appreciate that a lot of bogus points are being made. Nevertheless, there was no obligation on me as Minister to provide that advice, but I did so in an attempt to be open and transparent with the Committee. Also, the information from my officials is that they cannot trace the document in the Library of the House. In that respect, I apologise profoundly for the statements I have given. I will make sure that copies are placed in the Library tomorrow.

Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are limits to how much the House of Commons will take. The Minister has said that the legal advice is there when it is not, but the Government intend to proceed with their timetable. We should suspend this debate until we can get the legal advice—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. That matter has been dealt with by the Chair.

Mr. Forth: I will contain my anger and say to the Minister that he is inviting—

Mr. Leigh: Judicial review.

Mr. Forth: Further down the track, perhaps, but, before then, the hon. Gentleman is inviting the other place to look at this matter seriously. The other place may be able to get hold of this advice, although the House of Commons has not. Hopefully, it will be in the public domain by the time the Bill passes to another place, where I hope it is given a thorough going-over. The Minister has been complacent and has not attempted to answer the questions of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, who anticipated Report and Third Reading. He thought that we would have much more information than the Committee did when it gave its perfunctory examination of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman turned his mind to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Forth: I thought that I had been doing just that.

Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that this is retrospective legislation? It is seldom

that this House passes such legislation in such a slap-happy manner, and without having before it the documents described by the Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) responds, I would he grateful if he remembered that the House has dealt thoroughly with that topic as well.

Mr. Forth: Indeed, and I have been trying to pick up on points raised by the Minister. I am a traditionalist about Parliament, and I thought that these were called debates. In a debate, one listens to what the Minister or other hon. Members say, and then deals with those points. If the Minister has led me astray, I can only apologise. He referred to the auditor and to contingent liability. He mentioned the note, which he has admitted bare-facedly is not in the possession of the House, putting us all at a disadvantage.
This has been a shocking episode and the House should be ashamed of itself for allowing it to happen. However, as part of our great parliamentary process, if we in this House are unable to deal adequately with this matter due to the arrogance of the Government, there is a further parliamentary stage which I almost invite to deal with it. I shall send a copy of the Bill to my friends in another place and invite them to look more closely at it.

Mr. Bercow: Is my right hon. Friend as shocked as I am to learn, at 8.29 pm, after more than half an hour's debate on the Bill, that despite an extensive search by the experienced staff of the Library no record of the deposit of the legal note to which the Minister referred can be found?

Mr. Forth: The Minister has admitted that the text of the letter claimed that the arrangement had been made as long as three weeks ago, but that that is not the case. The hon. Gentleman was then briefed to tell us that the letter was available, but that is not the case. The matter requires a top-level inquiry and I hope that it will be conducted by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to whom I am sure we will all write about this disgraceful episode. I hope that we do not get the Minister into too much trouble, although he looks casual about it now. He will not be smiling so much when we hold his feet to the parliamentary fire.
Tonight's proceedings have been a sordid little episode and the Minister will regret his part in it. I intend to vote against the Bill to show my disgust at what has happened.

Mr. David Maclean: At least the Minister had the courtesy and the decency to apologise immediately when he realised that he was in grave danger of misleading the House. If he had not done so before the debate ended, I would have tabled an early-day motion tomorrow, condemning the Minister for misleading the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members may say that, but misleading the House is a serious charge and I know that the Minister would not do so deliberately. We have had excessive levity from Labour Members tonight, who consider the fact that the Minister referred to an important letter that is not available to the House as a matter of no importance. I know that we have discussed that and points of order have been raised, so I shall merely


say that I thought that it was a convention of the House that if a Minister referred to a document it had to be produced. I understand that Madam Speaker takes a dim view when that does not happen. [Interruption.] If Labour Members think that that does not matter—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a serious matter and the right hon. Gentleman should now direct his remarks to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Maclean: I am happy to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Indeed, that was my intention on attending the Chamber tonight. We all thought that the purpose of the Bill was to ensure the validity of certain charges levied by the Sea Fish Industry Authority and by the Herring Industry Board. The latter was abolished in 1981, but its liabilities were transferred to the authority. The Bill relates to charges made by the authority in its administration of certain schemes of financial assistance which had effect under part II of the Fisheries Act 1981.
The Sea Fish Industry Authority was instructed on 3 May 1996 to cease levying such charges because of some advice, a précis of which we have not seen but which may have advised that it was unlawful to levy those charges. That was the issue that I intended to debate on Third Reading tonight. However, in view of what the Minister has said, the suspicion is now gaining ground that the Bill has been included in the timetable motion tonight, and debate on it has been deliberately curtailed, because there are stinking fish out there that are now coming to light. The Government want to curtail discussion because they are concerned that we might manage to get our hands on the précis of the legal advice before the debate ends and discover what the auditors have advised. The debate has been curtailed for the sake of a cover-up to protect the backs of some people who may have been responsible for the administration of the scheme.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has suggested that the Bill has been put through with undue haste so as to give retrospective cover to executive decisions that were made about the scheme. Those decisions may have been right, but we can no longer debate that point. On the other hand, the charges may have contravened the powers of the original authority and the Sea Fish Industry Authority may have had no powers to make charges on the fishing boats that it was inspecting. I understand that the total grants allocated since the scheme started total some £88,766,031, including those previously approved by the Herring Industry Board and the White Fish Authority for fishing vessel safety schemes. Of course, the charges that MAFF would have made in return do not amount to anything like that sum. The charges were small in comparison, and were described as technical charges relating to the inspection of the vessels.
I am concerned that a Bill that we were told dealt retrospectively with some small technical charges may be a front for a cover-up. If so, the House should be aware of that before the Bill is bounced through tonight. Perhaps that is why the Government have been so keen on this draconian guillotine. We have not even had a Report stage for the Bill, and there certainly was no debate on it before it became the subject of the guillotine motion tonight.
The Bill took less than one and a half hours in Committee, but the Government want it guillotined in 45 minutes to prevent discussion on it. Why? It cannot be because the Government are embarrassed about the mistakes, because they took place under a previous Government. Therefore, the Government cannot wish to hide from the public the fact that since 1981 previous Governments may have administered erroneously a scheme that is now deemed ultra vires. If that were the case, the Government would boast about it. They would say, "The previous Government got it all wrong, and so did their civil servants and their legal advice. We are now sorting it out—look how good we are." The Government would normally take that line, but tonight they say, "Let's not discuss the Bill. Let's bash it through."
The Minister rattled off his speech and I am grateful that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is fast on the uptake on such matters and was able to recall so many of the key words from the Minister. My right hon. Friend was thus able to challenge the Minister in his usual erudite fashion, and I followed his points with interest. I cannot go into the detail of the conspiracy that my right hon. Friend suspects in this matter, because I could not follow the Minister's arguments at the breakneck speed at which he delivered them.
I know that some of my hon. Friends wish to contribute to the debate and to comment on the loss of the important legal précis.
I conclude with a point on retrospection made by the Home Secretary in 1986. He stated:
The Government have become slap happy in the use of retrospective legislation.—[Official Report, 23 June 1986; Vol. 100, c. 86.]
If the right hon. Gentleman were here tonight he would recognise a slap-happy Government who put through retrospective legislation and laugh when documents are unavailable for the House to study.
I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are familiar with international opinion on such matters. You will know that legal opinion in Australia holds that retrospective legislation has "strong negative connotations". We have seen those negative connotations tonight. I came here to vote the Bill through, but instead I shall support my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst in the Lobby. We must get to the bottom of the matter.

Mr. Edward Leigh: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked why the Government have brought in this retrospective legislation. The answer can be found in the explanatory notes to the Bill. Paragraph 17 states:
The total value of the charges levied by the Herring Industry Board and the Sea Fish Industry Authority was about £7.3 million covering some 13,000 cases. By ensuring that these were validly levied the Bill will secure a possible saving in public expenditure in avoiding any obligation that might otherwise arise to fund repayments.
That raises a serious question about the retrospective nature of the Bill. It seems to be generally accepted that the legal advice—which is not yet available to the House—states that the Government, and not the public, are responsible for the misdirection with regard to these charges. I fully accept that the fault may lie with


Governments other than this one. [Interruption.] I am not trying to be partisan. This Government are trying to put right law that has caused financial loss to members of the public. In effect, Governments have acted illegally in the past.
However, the Government do not admit the blame associated with being the successor to previous Governments' faults. They do not want any charge to be levied against public funds. For people who have suffered financially, that is rather shoddy. It would be far better for the Government to admit that a mistake was made—

It being five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the allocation of time motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of proceedings to be concluded at that hour.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 1.

Division No. 203]
[8.42 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Casale, Roger


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Alexander, Douglas
Clapham, Michael


Allen, Graham
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shield)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)



Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Austin, John
Clelland, David


Ballard, Jackie
Clwyd, Ann


Banks, Tony
Coaker, Vernon


Barnes, Harry
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Cohen, Harry


Beard, Nigel
Coleman, Iain


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Connarty, Michael


Begg, Miss Anne
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Corbett, Robin


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cotter, Brian


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cousins, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Crausby, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cummings, John


Berry, Roger
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Betts, Clive



Blackman, Liz
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Darvill, Keith


Blizzard, Bob
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Davidson, Ian


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dawson, Hilton


Bradshaw, Ben
Denham, John


Breed, Colin
Donohoe, Brian H


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Doran, Frank


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dowd, Jim


Browne, Desmond
Drew, David


Burden, Richard
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Burgon, Colin
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Edwards, Huw


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Efford, Clive


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Ennis, Jeff



Etherington, Bill


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fearn, Ronnie


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Cann, Jamie
Fisher, Mark


Caplin, Ivor
Fitzpatrick, Jim





Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Laxton, Bob


Flint, Caroline
Lepper, David


Flynn, Paul
Levitt, Tom


Follett, Barbara
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Fyfe, Maria
Linton, Martin


Galloway, George
Livsey, Richard


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gerrard, Neil
Llwyd, Elfyn


Gidley, Sandra
Lock, David


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McAvoy, Thomas


Godman, Dr Norman A
McCabe, Steve


Godsiff, Roger
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Goggins, Paul
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Golding, Mrs Llin



Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gorrie, Donald
Macdonald, Calum


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Grocott, Bruce
Mackinlay, Andrew


Grogan, John
MacShane, Denis


Hain, Peter
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McWalter, Tony


Hanson, David
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Mallaber, Judy


Harvey, Nick
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Martlew, Eric


Hepburn, Stephen
Maxton, John


Heppell, John
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hesford, Stephen
Meale, Alan


Hill, Keith
Merron, Gillian


Hinchliffe, David
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hoey, Kate
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Mitchell, Austin


Hope, Phil
Moffatt, Laura


Hopkins, Kelvin
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morley, Elliot


Howells, Dr Kim
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)



Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mountford, Kali


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mudie, George


Hurst, Alan
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hutton, John
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Norris, Dan


Illsley, Eric
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Olner, Bill


Jamieson, David
O'Neill, Martin


Jenkins, Brian
Öpik, Lembit


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pearson, Ian



Pendry, Tom


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Plaskitt, James



Pond, Chris


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pound, Stephen


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Keetch, Paul
Primarolo, Dawn


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prosser, Gwyn


Khabra, Piara S
Purchase, Ken


Kidney, David
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kilfoyle, Peter
Quinn, Lawrie


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Rammell, Bill


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rapson, Syd


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Raynsford, Nick






Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rendel, David



Roche, Mrs Barbara
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rooney, Terry
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Roy, Frank
Timms, Stephen


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tipping, Paddy


Salter, Martin
Todd, Mark


Sanders, Adrian
Touhig, Don


Sarwar, Mohammad
Trickett, Jon


Savidge, Malcolm
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Shaw, Jonathan
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Sheerman, Barry
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tyler, Paul


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Tynan, Bill


Singh, Marsha
Vis, Dr Rudi


Skinner, Dennis
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Watts, David



Webb, Steve


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Soley, Clive
Williams, Rt Hon Alan, (Swansea W)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis



Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stevenson, George
Willis, Phil


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Winnick, David


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wood, Mike


Stinchcombe, Paul
Woolas, Phil


Stoate, Dr Howard
Worthington, Tony


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wray, James


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stringer, Graham
Wyatt, Derek


Stuart, Ms Gisela



Stunell, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Mrs. Anne McGuire and



Mr. Tony McNulty.


NOES


Leigh, Edward
Tellers for the Noes:



Mr. Eric Forth and



Mr. David Maclean.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Royal Parks (Trading) Bill and Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill and the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill—

Timetable

1.—(1) Remaining proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and brought to a conclusion (if not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

(2) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and brought to a conclusion (if not previously concluded) five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

Questions to be put

2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on either Bill to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.

(2) The Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(4) If two or more Questions would otherwise fall to be put under sub-paragraph (2)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

Miscellaneous

3. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply at today's sitting to proceedings to which this Order applies.

4. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on either Bill are taken or to recommit either Bill.

6. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to either Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

7. If at today's sitting—

(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Seven o'clock; but
(b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before then,

proceedings on that Motion shall stand postponed until the conclusion of those proceedings.

8. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to either Bill.

Supplemental orders

9. The proceedings on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (if not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.

10. If at today's sitting the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

I shall speak only briefly as the House has much important business before it this evening. The two Bills with which we are concerned are important in the Government's view, and there are particular reasons why we want to see them complete their stages of consideration as rapidly as possibly.
The Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill facilitates the granting of free television licences to the over-75s as from 1 April. The need for those new powers is pressing. The Government's announcement of free television licences for people aged 75 or over has been widely welcomed by hon. Members on both sides and will help some of the most vulnerable members of the community. Without the Bill, elderly, and often frail, claimants could be put to considerable inconvenience in claiming their entitlement. The cost of administering the concession would also be far higher than under our proposals.
The second Bill is the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, and my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts will deal with its further stages. It will be regarded by most right hon. and hon. Members on both sides as long overdue and uncontroversial. It deals with abuses and problems caused by unauthorised traders in the royal parks. It has the support of those on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches.

Mr. Eric Forth: So what?

Janet Anderson: The right hon. Gentleman is in a minority. If, by his actions later this evening, he shows that he wants to consign tourists to London to eating dodgy hamburgers sold by dubious illegal traders in the royal parks, he will do the tourist industry a serious injustice. He will have plenty of time later to elaborate on his views.

Mr. John Bercow: Can the Minister tell us whether the Leader of the House has been informed of the displeasure expressed by Conservative Members about her failure to move the first allocation of time motion, despite her presence in the Palace of Westminster and the fact that she has voted? Can the Minister also tell us why the right hon. Lady failed to move this second motion?

Janet Anderson: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is always aware of what is going on in the Chamber. I am moving the motion because both Bills are the business of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that I am a Minister in that Department.
The need for new powers is pressing if we are to deal with the abuse of illegal trading in the royal parks. The health, safety and well-being of visitors must be protected, along with the rights and expectations of authorised

traders. The peaceful atmosphere of the royal parks must be maintained. The Bill will protect the interests of members of the public who visit the royal parks. I urge hon. Members to support the motion.

Mr. John Greenway: I make it clear that we support both the Bills mentioned in the guillotine motion. Like the Minister, I want the maximum opportunity for debate on the important issues that arise from the Bills and that are set down for discussion on Report.
Earlier today, my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) set out in some detail the Opposition view on the use of the guillotine. We shall reinforce that view in the Division Lobby at the end of this debate.
The previous debate was characterised by accusation and counter-accusation about who is to blame for the situation in which the Government find themselves. Our argument is not with the Bills, although some of my right hon. and hon. Friends will rightly wish to discuss some points of concern. However, this is the fifth or sixth Bill that I have dealt with in this Session as a Front-Bench spokesman on Home Affairs or Culture, Media and Sport. I must conclude that the Government's legislative programme is overloaded. During my 13 years as a Member, it has been unprecedented for the House to be asked to give Third Readings to no fewer than four Bills in one evening. If anyone thinks that blame attaches to any of my right hon. or hon. Friends for frustrating progress, that is not true.
The Royal Parks (Trading) Bill received its Second Reading in Committee, so this debate and our proceedings last Wednesday offer the only opportunities for hon. Members to discuss the measure. Although we have made our views abundantly clear from the Opposition Front Bench—as the Minister acknowledged—the Bill contains important issues of principle, such as the seizure and confiscation of assets and the question of penalties, which hon. Members obviously want to discuss.
Further important and fundamental issues are involved in the Government's proposals to implement their pledge to give all those aged over 74 a free television licence. As the Minister will know, during our extremely productive Committee proceedings, we managed to resolve—or make progress on—several matters of concern to right hon. and hon. Members. However, it is clear that there should be an opportunity to debate those points on Report, and for those Members who were not members of the Standing Committee to have the opportunity to put their threepenn'orth—as we would say in Yorkshire—into the debate on those important matters.
The Opposition formally do not approve the use of the guillotine. I hope that, during the next four to five hours, we shall be able to debate issues on both Bills that are of concern to hon. Members, even though we support the Bills. It is a sad occasion when measures that are formally supported by the Opposition nevertheless become the subject of a guillotine—not because hon. Members want to take time debating the issues, but because the Government have introduced too much legislation.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I have been a Member for about 17 years. During that time, there have been several timetable motions, but I have never spoken


on them—either at my own desire or at the behest of the Whips. I am moved to do so tonight and I make no apology for that.
When the Minister opened the debate, she made my point for me. She seems to believe that because the Opposition support the Bills, that is the end of the matter—as we support the Bills, it would be quite inappropriate to detain the House by actually examining their content.
Earlier this evening, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) pointed out that he was a traditionalist. I join him in that. It was my impression that I came to the House to scrutinise legislation—that is why I draw my princely salary. However, if I thought that there was common ground between myself and Labour Members, I was quickly disabused of that idea shortly after the general election.
I recall the last appearance—for the time being—of my right hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box when we were considering the Bill to abolish the assisted places scheme. I cannot remember whether we were discussing a guillotine motion or whether we were asking the then Leader of the House, now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, for time properly to debate the issue. However, she used a phrase that I found absolutely chilling. As a Member of the House—as a traditionalist—I still find it chilling. She said that we did not need any more time to debate the measure because the people had spoken.
That phrase was used to advance a proposition on a Bill that would take from parents of modest means the ability to send their children to some of the best schools in the country—in breach of a specific assurance to the contrary given by a Labour shadow Front-Bench spokesman when Labour was in opposition. All that was cast to the wind.
As I recall it, that Bill's First Reading was on a Monday and it was proposed that its Second Reading and remaining stages in the Commons should take place the same week. However—I remember it as clearly as if it were yesterday—hon. Members came into the House, as they will later, tapping their watches and pointing at the clock in the extraordinary belief that for £48,000 a year all they had to do was come in and tap their watches at 10 o'clock at night, and they would then be entitled to go home. We pointed out to them that they were not going home then, any more than they will go home at 10 o'clock tonight. We have a duty in the House of Commons to scrutinise the legislation that is before us.
I remember that, on that occasion, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made a speech of commendable brevity; it went on for no more than 90 minutes. He pointed out that the issues would have to be dealt with the following week when we had another two days to debate the Bill. I am reminded that the debate did not take place under a guillotine motion, but the principle holds true.
The view, "The people have spoken; no scrutiny is necessary; can we please be paid our salaries and go?" was expressed three years ago, and we would like to think that, in the intervening period, even this Government have begun to understand that we engage in a two-part process—they propose and we scrutinise. We have a vote and we come second, and that is the way it is for the time

being. However, they do not recognise that process, and they do not recognise how draconian a guillotine motion is. If someone wants to scrutinise a Bill even though they agree with it, the Government say, "Let's have a guillotine motion."
It is worth remembering how draconian guillotine motions are. The 22nd edition of "Erskine May", the guide to parliamentary practice—I doubt whether practice has changed from that described in the previous 21 editions—states that guillotine motions
may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business and the rights of debate.

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that we should have the maximum time to consider the two Bills because there are no fewer than 13 amendments, new clauses and new schedules tabled for debate and because the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting and the Minister for the Arts have on various occasions referred to dodgy burgers and rip-off traders? That may be a source of hilarity to the hon. Lady, but Ministers have not troubled themselves to offer any evidence for their charges against members of the public and traders who do not have the opportunity tonight or at any other time in a public forum to defend themselves.

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting did not make a speech of any great length but, even in her short address, she managed to introduce the concept of forcibly feeding people burgers. I do not go to the London parks very often—perhaps, you do, Mr. Deputy Speaker—but I have heard no reports of people being forcibly fed burgers. I have carefully read the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill to see whether it contains any provisions to prevent the forcible feeding of burgers. If that practice is going on in London parks, there is nothing in the Bill to stop it. However, the Minister introduced the concept as justification for the Government's motion.

Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to trouble my hon. Friend again, because he has dealt eloquently with my intervention. He knows that the Opposition support this Bill and the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill. However, if Ministers are to make charges against people, the least they should do is provide evidence of the health-damaging properties of the burgers in question. They have not done so. The Minister for the Arts should also provide evidence of the allegedly rip-off prices that he mentioned. Under interrogation the other day he palpably failed to do that.

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is exactly right and he anticipates the remarks that I shall make shortly. The Bill involves issues relating to liberty and people's capacity to pursue a humble calling in their own way without the nanny state bearing down on them. However, if I am not careful, my hon. Friend will lead me astray—quite unintentionally, I am sure—and divert me from the sequence of my argument.
A few moments ago, I was saying that guillotines have their place. Of course they do, otherwise I would not have voted for them over the years. However, there is no doubt


that the authorities state plainly that the use of the guillotine is draconian. I have a list of all the measures that have been guillotined since 1945. I shall not detain the House by going through them at great length, but it is instructive to examine some to give an idea of the gravity of measures which justify guillotining.
In the 1946–47 Session, the Transport Bill and the iron and steel legislation were subject to the guillotine procedure, as was the Housing Rents and Repairs Bill in 1953. In the 1971–72 Session, the European Communities Bill was subject to a guillotine. Indeed, there could be no more appropriate measure to be guillotined, as it dealt with a major constitutional issue in a way which, in retrospect, we know was profoundly misjudged.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give the House an idea of how long those Bills were in Committee? Is he aware that the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill was in Committee for only 35 minutes, so probably deserved greater scrutiny on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Nicholls: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. Indeed, one could make such a point without arguing for any particular brief on what the European Communities Bill did. At least it was acknowledged then that a draconian measure that would severely limit our ability to exert our sovereignty had been debated for a long time before being subject to a guillotine.

Mr. Owen Paterson: rose—

Mr. Nicholls: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
Another Bill in the 1971–72 Session which was thought appropriate for the guillotine procedure was the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill. My hon. Friend is twitching.

Mr. Paterson: I wanted to intervene when the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was in the Chamber. Sadly, however, he has just left. My hon. Friend is getting dangerously close to the hon. Gentleman's argument that there is a case for guillotine motions on what he described as important measures. Does he agree that that puts power back in the hands of the Executive, as they, not Members of Parliament, decide what measures to introduce and which are important?

Mr. Nicholls: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I hope that he was not criticising the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) for leaving, as the hon. Gentleman has been in the House many years and sometimes has to leave in the middle of our deliberations.
The hon. Gentleman may have been here in 1972, when the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill was subject to a guillotine. In passing, as we remember from the history books, I am delighted that some hon. Members, perhaps including the hon. Gentleman, insisted on that procedure for that ludicrous legislation, which said that one could legislate and order prices to go down when the market was driving them up. It is quite understandable that such lunacy should have been subject to the guillotine.
Bringing matters up to date, crucial constitutional measures that have been guillotined recently include the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill and,

since the last election, the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill and the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill. The European Communities (Amendment) Bill was guillotined, demonstrating that Europe, or rather the European Union—at least for the time being—is always with us. The Government of Wales Bill, the Northern Ireland Bill and the Human Rights Bill were also guillotined. That Bill, which became the Human Rights Act 1998, needed to be guillotined to be driven through the House, and as the Government will discover in a few short months, it will play havoc with this country's legal system.
The list includes a number of substantial Bills dealing with the future of the country, its identity and its constitution. Joining the list of all those important Bills that have gone through the House since the war is the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill. We are debating a proposal to guillotine a Bill dealing with the activities of hamburger salesmen. The Government say that if we accept that the Bill is correct in principle, no scrutiny is necessary.
Let us examine the matters that we shall consider tonight, after the guillotine motion has been approved—on the assumption that it is approved. We shall discuss the seizure provisions. Government Members may ask whether those matter. Yes, they do. There is a peculiar meanness about the way in which the provisions have been drafted. We are not dealing with major capitalists, extremely efficient makers of money or the nouveaux riches glitterati whose friends Labour Members are these days. We are speaking of people with a much humbler calling, who make a living selling hamburgers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the allocation of time for the Bill. We are not dealing with the content of the Bill at this stage.

Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point, in summary, is that when we get to the detail of the Bill, we will see that we are speaking about depriving people of their livelihood. If we go down that road, we need time for the debate.
What would be lost by debating these matters in detail? After all, the time now is 9.16 pm. Speaking for myself, and perhaps for some of my hon. Friends, I do not expect to work normal office hours for the salary that the state pays me. Underlining the ethos of using the guillotine on tiny measures such as this Bill is the belief among Labour Members that debate, let alone debate out of office hours, is quite unnecessary.
There is even an hon. Lady who says that she will give up her membership of Parliament because she finds that it does not fit in with family life. I find it extraordinary that when we do a job as big as the job that we should be doing in the House—scrutinising legislation—hon. Members say that we should be paid an abnormally high salary for working normal office hours.
Even though the principle of the Bill is agreed, it contains measures that deserve to be scrutinised. The House should devote sufficient time to that. I do not see what the problem is. On several occasions in recent weeks, I and my hon. Friends have shown that we are prepared to spend the time necessary to consider Bills in detail. If Labour Members cannot be persuaded to scrutinise the legislation introduced by the Government—


without anticipating the debate, I can say that the Bill has not been drafted with any great skill, to put it mildly—it is not too much to ask that they should at least make the case for it.
Perhaps the serried ranks of the Labour party are outside the Chamber, waiting to come in and make major speeches. Although my hon. Friends and I are outnumbered 3:1 in the House—I am thinking of quantity, rather than quality—there are two Labour Back Benchers present. They seem to be awake, but they are not moving, and I cannot tell whether they intend to speak. It is remarkable not only that Labour Members are not prepared to scrutinise the legislation, but that apparently they are not even prepared to make the case for it.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is a parliamentary traditionalist, who has 17 years of experience in the House. He referred to the short debate that took place in Committee. Is he shocked by Labour Members' enunciation of an entirely new parliamentary doctrine: a Bill's brisk consideration in Committee somehow justifies a Government decision to truncate, through a guillotine, its consideration on Report? Does he agree that the Committee reports the Bill to the House and that hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee should have a proper opportunity to contribute to its consideration on Report?

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is right. He can make that point only because, before he entered the House of Commons, he knew something about the profession that he was entering. I shall embarrass my hon. Friend for a moment by pointing out that he has a degree in politics. However, I am sure that he agrees that, whatever length of time one has wanted to go into Parliament, and whatever trouble one has taken to equip oneself to understand the work, one does not realise until one arrives here exactly what the job entails.
Labour Members have been here for three years. They are better informed but clearly none the wiser. They should have realised by now that some constitutional proprieties mean that they should return home at the weekend and, instead of saying, "Feel sorry for me; I've had to work long hours for my £48,000 a year", claim, "I have scrutinised the Executive. I have responded to a Whip; we all do that, but I have also considered the legislation to ascertain whether I can make a private point to the Whips, out of the Opposition's hearing." That is not happening.
What passes for debate and scrutiny has been utterly reduced. The people speak; the Minister comes into the Chamber; she optimistically looks at the clock; she speaks about the force-feeding of the public with hamburgers in the royal parks. She thinks that she can simply walk off with her salary, which exceeds £80,000 a year, believing that she has done the job of a Minister of the Crown. The Minister yawns; it may be the tedium of my speech or the realisation that she will be here in the early hours of the morning. If we cannot make the Government behave as they should and scrutinise Bills; if we cannot win in the Lobby, we can at least expose the Government to the shame that they should feel for treating the House and their constituents with conspicuous contempt.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: In a previous debate, it was a considerable pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I feel less privileged on this occasion. However, I repeat the point that I made previously: the Government have gone way over the top in their response to apparent provocation by scheduling two guillotines and four Bills for one day. Liberal Democrats believe that that is the wrong response. We shall vote against the guillotine, which we believe is out of place. I deployed arguments for that in the previous debate.

Mr. Nicholls: How does the hon. Gentleman conclude that criticising Bills constitutes provocation whereas voting against them does not?

Mr. Stunell: The hon. Gentleman was so committed to resisting the Government that he was not present during the previous debate on a guillotine. Had he been here, he would have heard the case that I presented. I suggest that he has a quick look at Hansard tomorrow morning. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not take much pleasure in having it pointed out that he did not listen to the debate.

Mr. Nicholls: I have read it.

Hon. Members: We are talking about this evening.

Mr. Stunell: Indeed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Can we stop the interventions from sedentary positions and proceed in a more orderly fashion?

Mr. Stunell: I am happy to take interventions when appropriate. The debate on the guillotine on the first two Bills was enlivened by interventions by Labour and Conservative Members, who believed that I should explain an alternative way forward in more detail. I gave an undertaking to do precisely that during this debate. The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, nods his head. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will think it in order for me to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and I have submitted a paper to the Modernisation Committee that suggests ways to deal with the immediate problems, starting from the Queen's Speech in November. The principles that we suggest could be applied to the remainder of the Session, if Members on both sides of the House were willing. We propose setting up a legislative business Committee, which would include all parties—Back Benchers and Front Benchers—the usual channels and representatives of minority parties. Immediately after the Queen's Speech, it would consider at what time during the year Bills should be introduced, in which House they would be most appropriately introduced and what would be a sensible time to allow for debate.
Let us deal head on with the overloading of the House. Whereas one of the Opposition's weapons against the Government is holding them to ransom on the day's timetable, one of the Government's weapons against the


Opposition is holding us to ransom on the year's timetable so that we do not even know when the summer recess will begin, let alone when it will end.

Mr. Forth: In that great scheme of his, how would the hon. Gentleman cater for the regrettably ever more common eventuality that, after publishing a Bill in good faith and even undertaking a pre-legislative stage, the Government have to table several hundred amendments during proceedings? How would his neat consensual timetable deal with that?

Mr. Stunell: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue—the quality of the legislation that is introduced. The House has approved the proposal from the Modernisation Committee, which he so disparages, to ensure that far more Bills receive the benefit of pre-legislative scrutiny, which involves not only hon. Members considering the legislation, but its being overhauled and reviewed with the benefit of outside evidence taken by a Select Committee.
No one can entirely legislate for Government error and fault. No one can entirely imagine everything that may go wrong and all the amendments that might be necessary, but I share a view with the right hon. Gentleman. If the Government have to abandon half a Bill in Committee—as happened with, for example, the Utilities Bill—and have to table a couple of hundred more amendments, the Liberal Democrats would take the view that different procedures should have been applied before it entered the legislative mill. The Chamber is not unlike a computer software slogan, "Rubbish in, rubbish out". If one begins with ill-considered, ill-drafted legislation, it is likely to remain so, however much we mess about with it.
If a legislative business Committee and adequate pre-legislative scrutiny were in place, many—but not all—of the problems that the House faces would be addressed and we could say, "This heavy legislative programme represents 35 or 40 weeks' work." However, after the Queen's Speech, we do not know in which month a Bill will be introduced or what consultation period will be involved, and there is a scramble to pass legislation before the summer recess. We cannot allow all that to continue.
The House has approved the possibility, in defined circumstances, of carrying legislation over into the following Session. That avoids another of the problems that we face: the somewhat light programme between the Queen's Speech and Christmas, a heavy Committee programme and the scramble as measures return from the House of Lords. Our system could hardly be better designed to ensure that we foul up, because we are rushing and scampering at the wrong times.
Surely, the aim of both Government and Opposition is to make certain that the legislation that emerges from this place is appropriate. The Opposition will want to challenge the principles of a Bill, and to ensure that the mechanics are right or, at least, favourable to the interests that they prefer; the Government will want to ensure that they produce working, workable legislation in a timely fashion. We do not obtain the best quality of government or of legislation from our current arrangements, which I would describe as boom-and-bust legislative procedures. It is filibuster and guillotine, boom and bust, and we have problems with both parts of that.
We oppose this guillotine, although, if these were any parks other than royal parks, any half-decent council would have referred the matter to the environmental health committee and it would have been sorted out in 10 minutes. What has happened in regard to the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill is no advertisement for Parliament. It is particularly strange in the light of yet another proposal submitted to the Modernisation Committee for the improvement of scrutiny of European legislation.
The hon. Members who have spent so much time talking about royal parks are the very ones who repeatedly complain here about the House's failure to control and monitor properly the flood of European legislation that arrives on our shores; yet it is they who prevented the Modernisation Committee from recommending the establishment of additional Select Committees to scrutinise such legislation. The reason given was that they did not have enough Conservative Members to staff the Committees. They have enough Conservative Members to keep us up talking about royal parks, but not enough to man Select Committees to scrutinise European legislation. One sometimes wonders if they deliberately design to fail: I can think of no better way of doing it.

Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stunell: Certainly. Let us hear the explanation.

Mr. Paterson: May I point out that my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr. Cash), for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and I are all members of the European Scrutiny Committee?

Mr. Stunell: I am delighted to hear it, but apparently those hon. Members could not persuade enough of their colleagues to become members of the proposed additional Committees. As a member of the Modernisation Committee, I thought it made a good deal of sense for those scrutinising that flood of European legislation to be people who had developed a certain expertise on the topics concerned. I thought that it would be sensible to establish Committees that matched the directorates involved, so that such expertise could be built up. Indeed, I considered such a process to be not just sensible but highly necessary. I should have expected Conservative Members to be entirely committed to achieving that; yet, although they have time to spend on bogus amendments about royal parks, they have no time to join the additional European Committees. Although we shall oppose the guillotine on this particular pair of Bills, the actions of Conservative Members test even our patience considerably.
At the beginning of my speech, I outlined briefly a scheme that would enable the business of the House to be planned so that, more often than not, the problems that we face tonight would be automatically avoided. I also said something else. When Conservative Members wondered how a legislature could possibly get a tighter grip on an over-mighty Executive, I said that one way of doing that would be to have a fairly and proportionately elected Parliament. Their faces fell.
Executives in European Community countries and wider afield are far more beholden to their legislatures than the Executive of this country. The fundamental reason for that is the fact that in those countries there is


no one-party domination. Conservative Members may not like that, but the fact that they do not like it does not mean that it is not true.

Mr. Fabricant: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman thinks that guillotines would be avoided by having proportional representation. They would not. The Italian Parliament has guillotine motions. Why is the Italian Parliament putting to their people in a referendum a proposal to introduce a first-past-the-post system?

Mr. Stunell: We often hear such arguments. I would be more than happy to engage in a debate on proportional representation, but—

Madam Speaker: Not today.

Mr. Stunell: I anticipated that that would be your view, Madam Speaker. I would be delighted to have that debate on another occasion.
Instead of this guillotine motion, we should be discussing the serious, practical implementation of ideas that I am not putting to hon. Members for the first time, but which have already been before the House and approved but not implemented. That would get us a long way forward. Ideas have been discussed such as improved pre-legislative scrutiny of legislation and Standing Committees that draw much more strongly on the relevant Select Committee membership, so that Standing Committees considering Bills contain people who know what they are talking about.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, and I served on the Committee considering the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, and if I may say so we had an unusually well-informed debate. If there was one thing that members of that Committee knew about it was political parties, and that greatly informed the discussion. I am afraid that that is not always so when hon. Members are allocated to Standing Committees.
We need to make better use of other agencies. Westminster Hall could be used for debates on Law Commission reports, for Adjournment debates, for holding Ministers to account and for debates on Select Committee reports. We even need a little self-discipline. Although there is no doubt that hon. Members have, and should continue to have, the right to use the procedures of the House to express their anger and outrage at what any Government are doing—long may that continue—we still require a little discretion, common sense and self-discipline so as not every time to use the shotgun or the sledgehammer to crack the nut.
These two debates have been made necessary by the Government, who have over-reacted to the situation. I suggest to Opposition Members that when we have genuine cause to hold up this or any other Government, we should use the procedure ruthlessly, but if every time we see a space, we fill it, the value of the genuine, deeply held and sometimes bitter opposition to a real issue gets completely hidden in the noise.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: I thank the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting for having the courtesy to come here and propose the motion.

That is something of a novelty, given our earlier proceedings. However, she did not sustain her argument that the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill in particular—I attended the earlier stages of the debate on that Bill—should be subject to a guillotine. She merely said that it was an important Bill, and that the Government wanted it on the statute book.
The Minister failed to explain what was so important about the Bill that it required a timetable motion, and what enormous consumption of time had taken place which meant that the motion had to be introduced. She said that it was her preference to spend as little time as possible arguing about the timetable motion so that more time could be spent arguing about the substance of the Bill. That is a fairly honest and honourable position. However, there are times when the consideration of the guillotine motion is more important than the substance of the Bill that is to be guillotined—such is the enormity of a decision to curtail debate and to limit the free speech of Members and their ability to scrutinise a Bill, which is their primary role. Clear justification must be given for that. Frankly, that has been lacking tonight.
I do not dispute that the Government at times have a right to ask the House to support a timetable motion. It may be that a matter has been considered over a great length of time and that it is felt by the House that it should come to a decision and move on, but the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill has not been discussed for a great length of time. Those who were present in the House last Wednesday will, I think, agree that we were making progress and that the Government would have had their Bill that night. For some extraordinary reason, they decided to pull stumps at 10 o'clock, but they would have had the Bill that night. We were making progress. I have no doubt that we would have continued to make progress.
I fear that the timetable motion has more to do with the management of those on the Government Benches, and with addressing some of the concerns that they have raised privately with their Whips, than with delivering the Bill. I now fear that the Bill and its Third Reading will be longer in coming than would have been the case had we pursued the discussion last Wednesday night.
We were told that it was an important Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who has temporarily left the Chamber, was concerned that it represented an attack on small entrepreneurs. That was far from true, according to supporters of the Bill. They alleged that it was an assault on organised crime and the Mafia. That is all the more reason, therefore, for the Bill to receive greater and prolonged scrutiny—scrutiny that is now denied by the motion.
Earlier, a novel argument for the guillotine was introduced by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). He said that he had no objection whatever to sitting through the night on important measures such as the minimum wage legislation—if it was important Labour Members were prepared to put in the hours. I entirely accept that. However, he wanted a timetable motion because he was not prepared to sit through the night to discuss what he regarded as a consensual or smaller measure—I will not say an unimportant measure; I do not think that he meant that—or a measure of less weight, such as the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill. He believed that such a measure should be guillotined.
As the hon. Gentleman developed his argument, he resiled from that position. He warmed to his theme and became so passionate at one stage that he struck the microphone, but he moved from his initial position and said that all Bills should be guillotined. Timetables should be applied to all Bills, but the length of time should depend on the importance of the Bill.
The question arises who is to determine the length of time, as has happened today. The length of time that the Bill will be discussed is a consequence of the timetable motion. The hon. Gentleman did not dwell on the mechanism by which it would be decided that a Bill was important, or the mechanism by which the time that it should have would be decided, but I did not have much confidence in his argument.
I remember when what I would regard as a very important Bill was guillotined—the Bill that put into English law the provisions of the Amsterdam treaty. It was not guillotined after prolonged scrutiny, and certainly not after prolonged speeches by Opposition Members. Indeed, the Member who spoke longest on that Bill was the Minister himself, who was none other than the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North. It was he, if anyone, who spoke at length on that Bill. My view is that he did not speak overlong on the Bill. He certainly did not filibuster. He dealt with the Bill properly, but it was outrageous to curtail debate when he spoke for longer than anyone else. I therefore cannot have any confidence in his judgment that only important Bills should not be time restricted, whereas unimportant ones—perhaps such as the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill—should be so restricted.
I rather felt that the hon. Gentleman gave the game away in finishing his remarks, when he said, "By the way, we should do away with all this voting and vote just once a week. It can be announced that we should all be here on that day; then we could plan our timetables accordingly." That is when the cat came out of the bag. Undoubtedly, it would be for the convenience of some hon. Members if we turned up once a week, disposed of all our voting and did away with argument. However, this is not a congress of ambassadors. It is supposed to be a deliberative assembly, to which we come along to listen to the arguments nd then make our decisions.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) made much of the need to make greater use of timetabling. However, I draw his attention to what happened during the passage of the Government of Scotland Act 1998, which was substantially timetabled and demonstrated the weaknesses of using that procedure. I also note that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), who is a veteran of that Act's prolonged consideration, is now in the Chamber.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, previously agreed timetables are disrupted not only by the tabling of hundreds of Government amendments. Sometimes, it is only when we start the detailed scrutiny of a Bill that we have any inkling of potential problems with the legislation. Time and again as we considered the 1998 Act, some Labour Members were frustrated—it was not a question of delay or filibustering—by the timetable motion, which prevented them from debating and exploring in Committee previously unforeseen issues.
In our consideration of the 1998 Act, frequently the programme motion's effect—I do not think that it was deliberately so; in this case, I am certainly not a

conspiracy theorist—was to silence the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Although I do not think that that was the intention of the timetable, often enough that was its effect. Those who advocate timetable motions should be clear that they will be silencing not only Opposition Members. Earlier in this Session, I watched with awe and much approval as a disciplined group of Labour Members dealt very effectively with opposed private business. If timetable motions were used more often, Labour Members would soon begin to fall foul of their provisions. I do not advocate going down that road.
As I said, my fear is that this timetable motion is more to do with the management of Labour Members' disgruntlement than with achieving the legislation. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary, who is essentially Deputy Leader of the House, to find a relatively small group of Labour Members who are prepared to stay on after 10 pm to deal effectively with the arguments that are made by the few Opposition Members who attend those debates. I believe that the Government would find it much easier to get their business by taking that path, rather than by continually pulling stumps, coming back and having to endure—as we shall today—two three-hour debates on timetable motions. I think that the Government would find it more expedient to pass legislation in that way than by using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Earlier, I had the privilege of hearing the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) speak about what Parliament is all about. This Parliament is all about the scrutinising and preparation of legislation. It is not a nine-to-five job.
Let me take the House back with an image from history. Imagine that it is the year 850. Dank mists lie over the water and all that can be heard is the regular swish-swash of oars from a longboat as it enters a misty inlet, which, in future, will be known by the Icelandic words for misty inlet—Reykjavik. Within 50 years, a Parliament was formed, called the Althing—the forerunner of our Parliament.
In 900 to 950, Norsemen, who later came via Scandinavia to colonise our country, as they had earlier, stood opposite a cliff and would debate not in a Parliament contained by a roof, but in a Parliament contained by the heavens. The acoustics were such that they used to shout at each other, aiming their voices at a cliff. Debates sometimes lasted two, three or four weeks. Chieftains would come from throughout the island of Iceland to speak at the Althing—a collection of individuals who debated the law. There was no written record—

Mr. Forth: And no guillotine.

Mr. Fabricant: More to the point, as my right hon. Friend says, there was no guillotine.
The point is that this Parliament follows in the tradition of the Althing—or it should. However, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) has said, the Government have got themselves into a mess. They are over-legislating. As I said earlier, I remember being advised by—I hesitate to use the word—my mentor, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who was my pair in the days when we were allowed to have pairs. When the Conservative


Government were not doing so well, he said that they should stop legislating and stand still. My advice to the Government, who are not doing well, is not to legislate—or at least not to over-legislate. That is what has got them into this mess.
Why have we got a guillotine motion? Is it because we have discussed the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill or the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill at length? No. The Royal Parks (Trading) Bill was discussed for just 35 minutes in Standing Committee and the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill was considered in two sittings for just two hours and three minutes.
Some might say that they are unimportant Bills, but we know that they are not. The Minister has told us that they are important Bills. So why are they being guillotined? Is it because the Government think that we would not otherwise complete all the stages this evening? I am convinced that if there were no guillotine and the Government were to agree to discuss the Bills through the night if need be, both Bills would receive Third Reading long before the sun rose over the horizon.
As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said, we have a guillotine because Labour Members believe that being a Member of Parliament is a salaried job. But as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) so eloquently said earlier, this is not a place where one can do a nine-to-five job.
I have sympathy for the hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham), who has just had twins. I appreciate that some people have other lives apart from the House of Commons. However, even in a nine-to-five job, one is expected to do the job. One cannot say to an employer, "I am now going to take a four-month leave of absence, but you must keep the job open for me. In the meantime, I want you to adapt your own practices, so that everything slows down because of me." It would be immoral to ask that of an employer. It is even more immoral to ask that of the state which pays our wages.

Mr. David Winnick: I am interested in the description "nine-to-five job", which none of us wants. Was the hon. Gentleman against the Jopling recommendations? I cannot remember Conservative opposition in the last Parliament to the recommendations, particularly the recommendation that the amount of time spent in the House after 10 o'clock should be limited. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues believe that what we are advocating is all wrong, why was there not such opposition to Jopling at the time?

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. When I came into the House in 1992, I was bewildered by this place. I had come from industry, and I was not a Blair babe. I was a Major man, and I tended to vote with the Government. Rarely did I question the Government. I have to say that I am enjoying myself a darn sight more now that I am able to think for myself in opposition. I had my doubts about Jopling because I thought that it was conceivable that we might be in opposition some day. However, I voted with the

Government because I was a Major man. I did not feel happy with the provisions of the Maastricht treaty but, like a good victim of the Whips, I voted for that, too.

Mr. Graham Brady: Does my hon. Friend recall that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster)—a former Labour Chief Whip—made it clear that he had doubts about Jopling at the time? He has said explicitly that he only dropped those doubts—and that Labour only became prepared to accept Jopling—when the Labour party was convinced that it was going to win the election. There was no high principle involved; it was pure politics.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend has made his point clearly. Of course it is a question of politics, organisation and trying to run this House like a legislation factory. However, that is wrong. Legislation is never perfect. There is a strange argument that if legislation is not contentious, we should not spend time over it. However, just because we might agree with the broad thrust of a Bill does not mean that its provisions may not be contentious or imperfect.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Motions on Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords] and Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill (Allocation of Time) and Royal Parks (Trading) Bill and Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill (Allocation of Time) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Question agreed to.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Fabricant: Labour Members have tried to argue that Conservative Governments had guillotine motions, too, but there are two points to make in reply. First, two wrongs do not make a right. Secondly, if we accept that sometimes guillotine motions are not wrong, because matters can be debated at length on the Floor of the House and in Committee, it is worth examining how often different Governments have used them. My near neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has made a detailed analysis. He said that during the Thatcher and Major years, the Conservative Government had 60 guillotine motions, but the Labour Government have had 50 in the past three years. It appears that the opinion of many journalists and parliamentarians that this Government are becoming more and more presidential, and less and less interested in what happens in the House, is borne out by their lack of compunction in using guillotine motions.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, who sadly is no longer in her place, was right to point out that the people who dislike the way in which Parliament works should perhaps not have come here in the first place. Some people believe that when they are in Rome, they should do as the Romans do, but some hon. Members seem to believe that they should make the Romans do as they do. That is the fallacious argument that has been made by many Labour Back Benchers today.
It is interesting that those who argue for guillotine motions and a factory of legislation were not elected in 1992 or before. They were all new Members of Parliament in 1997, who are as bewildered as I was during the 1992–


97 Parliament. I can appreciate how they feel, because I too have had to sit on the Back Benches and vote with the Government because of the force of the Whips and my sense of duty to my party.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove, who is no longer in his place, spoke at some length in this debate and in the earlier timetable debate about what he would do, if in government, to try to ensure that legislation went through steadily. He said that the Government's legislation is going through boom and bust, but I think that it is going through bust and bust—just as I fear the economy soon will.
When I asked the hon. Member for Hazel Grove what he would do to prevent guillotines being imposed, he had no answer. However, the answer is obvious: if need be, we must be prepared to debate through the night. If the Government Whips had not pulled stumps at 10 o'clock last Wednesday, we could have finished business by 2 or 3 o'clock the next morning, at the latest.

Mr. Greenway: Or before.

Mr. Fabricant: Or before, as my hon. Friend rightly says.
This Bill must be debated fully. Parliament is a place where people scrutinise legislation and speak—

Mr. Denis MacShane: On and on.

Mr. Fabricant: If necessary, they will go on and on and on, as the hon. Gentleman says. However, I give way to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), who always makes welcome interventions.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The hon. Gentleman has called me unkind in the past, so I will not be unkind to him tonight. Does not he agree that we might get through our debates faster if our speeches were terse and to the point?

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is right. I shall be terse and to the point when I contribute to the Third Reading debates on these Bills.

Mr. David Taylor: For the first time.

Mr. Fabricant: That is very unfair. When I want, I can speak to the point, but sometimes we must expand on the role of Parliament. Too many people believe that Parliament is not a talking shop, and that we should not scrutinise legislation. They believe that hon. Members should merely vote, unthinkingly, according to the wishes of their Whips.

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister for the Arts wants to truncate scrutiny of the

Royal Parks (Trading) Bill because he lacks evidence about the pricing policies of burger sellers and the nutritional—or other—properties of their products?

Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go down that route.

Mr. Fabricant: I shall not go down that route, especially as it has been said that bird droppings—

Madam Speaker: Order. I asked the hon. Gentleman not to go down that route. He should concentrate on the motion before the House.

Mr. Fabricant: I draw the House's attention to the Parks Regulation Act 1872, which defines which parks are royal. We should have to debate the Bill for much more than a couple of hours if all the hon. Members with royal parks in their constituencies were present tonight. The Act states that the royal parks are Hyde park, St. James's park, Green park—known as "the" Green park in 1872—Kensington gardens, Parliament Square gardens, Regent's park, Kennington park, Primrose hill, Victoria park, Battersea park, Greenwich park, Kew gardens—including the pleasure grounds and the green there—Hampton Court park, gardens and green, Richmond park and green, Bushy park, Holyrood park, and Linlithgow Peel.
I must confess to my ignorance in not knowing whether Linlithgow Peel is in Scotland, Ireland or Northern Ireland. I suspect that it is not in England—but where are the hon. Members associated with those royal parks? They are not in the Chamber.

Mr. Swayne: Is it my hon. Friend's estimate that the provisions of that Act are in any way co-measurate with the provisions of the Bill that will be before us after the debate on the motion? How long did it take for that Act to pass through its stages compared with the time that we are being allowed in which to discuss this Bill?

Mr. Fabricant: I was going to refer to my hon. Friend, but as he has asked me a question to which I have no answer, I must refer to him as the hon. Gentleman. I am afraid that I do not know. The Parks Regulation Bill became an Act on 27 June 1872—I do not have its Committee stage here. Interestingly, it was printed not by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, but by George Edward Eyre and William Spottiswoode. That is a good example of privatisation before HMSO was founded.
I believe that under no circumstances would the 1872 Act have been guillotined when it was still a Bill. It would have been scrutinised for far longer than the mere 35 minutes that this Bill received in Committee, or the 43 minutes that the Second Reading debate took.

Mr. Swayne: The argument has been advanced this evening that the very fact that the Committee stage was so short is an argument for curtailing the Bill's remaining stages. Does my hon. Friend agree that the shorter the Committee stage, the greater the care that those of us who wish to scrutinise the remaining stages should take?

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend—the House will note that I am once again referring to him as an hon. Friend—is right.
It has been said that a number of amendments to the Bill were tabled on the Floor of the House just to be contentious. That is not the point. I do not know how many people served on the Standing Committee considering the Bill, but I know that there are 639 Members of Parliament—[Interruption.]—or rather, 659. I am showing my age. Actually, I was deducting 20 to take into account those who cannot take part in debate because they are Whips or work with the Speaker.
The remaining Members of Parliament may think of amendments that they want to table but are unable to do so unless they served on the Standing Committee. To accuse Conservative Members, as Ministers have done, of being provocative or trying to waste time by tabling amendments today is a disgrace and an abuse of the House.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend refers to the scurrilous criticism that amendments and new clauses have been tabled "to be contentious". Will he confirm the important point that, for many Opposition Members, contentiousness does not need to be contrived when it is natural?

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend, eloquent as ever, states the obvious. When legislation is badly drafted, one needs to be contentious to improve it.

Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When a Bill is uncontested on Second Reading and flows through its Committee stage uncontested, is it not an abuse of the process of the House to table spurious amendments and make stupid interventions and silly points in order to prolong proceedings?

Madam Speaker: Spurious amendments may have been tabled, but all the amendments that were selected by this Speaker are perfectly in order.

Mr. Fabricant: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In fact, the hon. Gentleman will see that the selection list refers to the Speaker's provisional selection of amendments. That is the point. Perhaps more amendments were tabled, I do not know. However, the fact that they will come before the House today demonstrates that they should have been discussed in Committee. If they were not, it is right and proper that we discuss them on the Floor of the House.

Mr. David Maclean: Does my hon. Friend consider that Government new clause 2, in respect of the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill is a spurious amendment, to quote the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham)?

Mr. Fabricant: That is something that we shall have to debate. Sadly, we shall not be able to do so at length. The abuse of the House is not my debating these issues this evening but the imposition of the guillotine. I suspect that we shall have only an hour to debate six clauses and three groups comprising one new clause and five amendments. That is surely an abuse of the House.

Mr. Greenway: I am becoming a little concerned that my hon. Friend might think that the Committee did not

pay sufficient regard to the Bill, given the time that we took to consider it. I give him the assurance that that is not the case. New clause 2 has been tabled by the Government at the request of the Opposition.

Mr. Fabricant: That was a helpful intervention. It demonstrates that the Government have much to learn from the Opposition. Why is it that the Government think that they can learn from the Opposition only in Committee and not on the Floor of the House? How much more could they learn were we able to debate these issues until 4, 5, 6 or 7 am? We might be able to continue right through until Wednesday. We have learned that the Prime Minister is taking parental leave, and we could continue through Prime Minister's Question Time, as we did once before.

Mr. Swayne: Am I correct in understanding that my hon. Friend said earlier that these matters should have been considered by the Committee? I think that I am quoting him correctly. Is he criticising the Committee for not having done its duty thoroughly? If that is so, is it his contention that the motion could have been avoided if the Committee of Selection had attended properly to its task?

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend takes me down an interesting line of reasoning which I think I would be wise not to pursue. However, two heads are better than one. I do not know how many Members served on the Committee, but let us say that there were 11. Given that there are 639 Members able to speak in the House, as opposed to a total membership of 659, surely they constitute a better body of opinion than 11 Members.
As perfect as the Committee undoubtedly was and as talented as all its members undoubtedly were, it would not be unreasonable to say that they would not be able to think of every improvement that could be made to the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has said, it is so easy to be contentious when dealing with Government Bills. Even the Government are contentious when it comes to their Bills. We have only to remember the Utilities Bill, half of which had to be torn up and thrown away. The remaining half was improved by the Government, who had to introduce new clauses that, when put together, were as big the original Bill.

Mr. Christopher Fraser: I was a member of the Committee that considered the Utilities Bill. We sent it back on the ground that it did not do that for which it was intended because the Government had messed it about. I was a member also of the Committee that considered the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). During our consideration of it we put some good points to the Government. Only today I have received comments from the Minister, saying how grateful she is to us for making those points. Our suggestions should have gone into the Bill at that earlier stage. That flies in the face of what the Government are doing.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. When the House is working at its best, we co-operate to try to improve legislation. Both these Bills are non-contentious. Both sides want them to succeed. However, that does not mean that they should simply


receive a Third Reading. They must be workable, just and correct. It is not unreasonable that amendments should be debated fully and, if necessary, at length. When the Government say, "No, we object to true democracy in the House of Commons", we must question their presidential attitude. The House of Commons is here to scrutinise legislation. It is not here to be timetabled.

Mr. Paterson: My hon. Friend should not give the House the impression that the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill is not contentious. We are talking about extending the power of the law and the confiscation of private property. Surely our first role is to defend citizens from an over-mighty state.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend makes his point in his way, but I am not sure that I agree. No doubt we shall discuss the point when we discuss the Bill, although we shall not do so at length because of the guillotine. I am a free marketeer and libertarian, but the basic principle of the Bill is to provide the same powers to the parks police as the Metropolitan police already have. In that way, traders will not simply be displaced from one area to another.

Mr. Maclean: With respect to my hon. Friend, has he not missed the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson)? It is not so much the substance of the Bill that we are questioning under the guillotine motion as the fact that its consideration has been largely completed already. Only one amendment remains to be discussed in full, as well as a group of amendments that we were more than half way through. Can my hon. Friend recall a case in which a Government imposed a guillotine when so little remained to be debated on a Bill that had almost completed its Report stage? We could probably have completed the Bill last week if the Government had not slipped in a statement that day.

Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend is correct, of course. I was present when we debated the Bill until the Government decided to cease consideration at 10 o'clock. Only two groups of amendments remain for discussion, including the one on the power of seizure, retention and disposal of property that we were half way through. After that, there remains a single amendment to do with counterfeit goods. We had no votes on the Bill, so keen were we that it should proceed rapidly. There is general agreement that the House wishes the Bill to be enacted once it has been made good, fair, accurate and just.
At present, however, the Bill is none of those things. Nor is the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill. We all want people aged over 75 to have free television. Indeed, I must declare an interest because my mother is 89, alive and well, and living in Lichfield. She is looking forward to not having to pay for her television licence. [Interruption.] For the record, I should say that she does not live with me in Lichfield, as some hon. Members have suggested.
The Bill needs to be discussed at length. One group of amendments relates to offences and penalties. There is potential for gross intrusion. The previous Government introduced the Data Protection Act 1988, and there is some doubt about whether the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill breaches the principle of that Act. It will give private organisations access to

information contained on databases which are maintained by the Department of Social Security and which were previously regarded as secure.
These are important issues. Yes, we want the outcome to be that people aged over 75 should have free television licences. I am certainly keen that traders should not be displaced either from parks on to public streets or vice versa. However, we must get the measures right. Is it so unreasonable to say in the House of Commons that we want legislation to be right?
What do the Government say? They say no. They say that we must decide on all those measures quickly, even though there are several contentious issues, and even though, time and again, the Government get their own legislation wrong. We saw that with their introduction of new clauses on these Bills and on previous measures.
In conclusion—because my voice is giving up on me—the Government have an unhappy record on legislation. They try to railroad it through, like some victorious power; they are heedless of democracy and of what is right. However, while doing that, they cannot achieve quality; time after time, they have to correct their legislation—usually at a late stage.
It would be in the Government's interest not to impose a guillotine on these measures, because only with time do they find out that their legislation is fallacious. Was it not a year after the Opposition made criticisms of the Utilities Bill that those criticisms finally seeped through to the Department of Trade and Industry and into the mind of the Secretary of State? It took a whole year.
I am not suggesting that we spend a year discussing either of the Bills, but I am arguing that we should debate them properly. There was a teacher who always used to interrupt me when I was giving a little discourse to my class—like certain Labour Members who intervene on me to try to shut me up, but that tends to make me speak for even longer, because interventions make people talk longer. I suspect that the Government would find that, if the legislation were not guillotined and they had not drawn stumps, we should have held the Third Reading debate more than a week ago.
The measure is imperfect. An imperfect Government are trying to force through far too much legislation too quickly—it is deficient and has to be corrected. The use of the guillotine 50 times in three years, compared with 60 times in 11 years when we were in government, demonstrates clearly that the Government are not concerned with democracy. They are not interested in Parliament. They make announcements to the press before they make them to the House. They try to sideline Westminster.
Power is centred more and more on Whitehall, but the electorate are listening. They are watching; they have seen through the Government. Every time the Government make an announcement, the electorate say, "What, again? More money? We don't believe it because we don't see it." Perhaps a year from now, just before the election, money will be announced and the Government will be telling the truth, but no one will believe them—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a long way now. A moment ago, I thought he was in his peroration.

Mr. Fabricant: To conclude, the bypassing of Parliament achieves nothing. In the short term, it results


in imprecise legislation. In the long term, the public see through it. In two or three years' time—under a Conservative Government—the legislation will come back and we shall have to correct it, because, when the Labour Government railroad legislation through, they consistently get it wrong.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The length of a speech and its quality are not entirely related. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) should take a leaf out of the book of Abraham Lincoln and his Gettysburg address, which took less than five minutes. It echoed down the ages because of its content.
I do not complain that the debate on the motion promises to be rather longer than the debates on the substance of the Bills. The management of legislation is in many ways more important than its substance. I only regret that, in speaking against the guillotine, Conservative Members' views have been sustained by such weak arguments. It is peculiar to latch on to these two instant Bills to make such points.
The Royal Parks (Trading) Bill owes its genesis to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). He was a member of the Standing Committee and expressed himself to be more than content with the way in which the Bill had been introduced. In so far as he had any criticisms to make—and he made them—he expressed considerable irritation that the Bill had not been introduced earlier and had not been dealt with more expeditiously. His absence speaks eloquently of his irritation at the performance and gyrations of some Conservative Members who have done so much to prevent the Bill from becoming law.

Mr. Maclean: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in so far as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) was concerned about the delays in getting the Bill to the House. The Government caused those delays last year because of the time it took them to get the private Member's Bill that my right hon. Friend introduced through the legislative process. Unfortunately, he had to introduce his Bill late in the Session and it did not receive a Second Reading. His concerns were caused by delays in the Government machine. The Government approved a Bill which they eventually decided was uncontentious.

Mr. Maclennan: I wish I could say that it is a novel idea to suggest that delays caused by the Government are wrong, while those caused by the Opposition are right. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster complained about delay, and the Bill has been considerably delayed more than necessary by the antics of Conservative Members.

Mr. Bercow: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Government that brief consideration of a Bill in Standing Committee justifies the imposition of a guillotine on Report, or does he agree with the Opposition that such consideration justifies no such thing?

Mr. Maclennan: In this case, the short time it took to consider the Bill in Committee and the absence of

significant representations to those on the Committee—I was one of them—suggested that the people most directly affected by its provisions were not greatly perturbed. The Bill was widely perceived to meet a need. It might even have been desirable to have it on the statute book before the summer recess when people visit the royal parks—

Mr. Paterson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: Let me finish my sentence. I do not want to make a speech that is much longer than Lincoln's at Gettysburg. However, as I have been interrupted, I will give way.

Mr. Paterson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Had he been here at 10 o'clock last Wednesday night, he would have seen that we were well on the way to completing the Bill's report stage. Very few Members wished to speak and if the 10 o'clock motion had been moved and a Government Whip had not arbitrarily interrupted the debate, the Bill would probably have sailed on and been given a fair wind. It was unnecessary to stop proceedings at 10 o'clock.

Mr. Maclennan: The 10 o'clock rule exists to enable the Government to conclude proceedings if that seems appropriate to them and to the House. I belong to the school of thought that, on the whole, it makes more sense for proceedings to conclude at 10 o'clock than to go on beyond that.
I remember my late friend, John Mackintosh, the former Labour Member of Parliament for Berwick and East Lothian, serving notice on the then Labour Government, whom he mostly supported, that if they were so unwise as to bring on legislation after 10 o'clock, they could not count on his support. That view weighed heavily with the Government as they had a very small majority, and they almost invariably paid attention to what he said. In fact, he almost established a convention of the House.
I am concerned that, because the present Government do not have a small majority—indeed, they have an almost unprecedentedly large majority—they will plough on regardless because no one is prepared to put their foot down and say, at 10 o'clock, "Enough is enough." I think that enough is enough. I am fortified in that view by what I read in today's Evening Standard, where the former Conservative Member of Parliament for Buckingham, Mr. George Walden, talks of how the public have increasingly lost sympathy with the House and ceased to see it as the cockpit of major national debate, not least because of its inability properly to manage its business and because it goes on debating matters into the night.
I do not want to take too much issue with the hon. Member for Lichfield, who was indulging his wit.

Mr. David Taylor: What?

Mr. Maclennan: After-dinner speeches are supposed to be light and entertaining, and the hon. Member for Lichfield fell firmly into that category.

Mr. Fraser: Can the right hon. Gentleman, who is giving us a Cook's tour of parliamentary procedure,


explain why, in recent Committee proceedings on the Utilities Bill and the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill, which I attended, his colleagues tabled amendments but did not bother to turn up to move them? How does that help the parliamentary process that he is describing?

Mr. Maclennan: Curiously enough, I am addressing the two Bills that are before the House and whether or not a guillotine motion should be employed in this instance. I am not aware of what the hon. Gentleman has described and I cannot see that it is relevant to the discussion. The relevant question is whether this is the best way to manage the business of the House.
It is time that the Opposition got together with the Government and took up the idea of a legislative procedure Committee in which we seek agreement about how to deal with these matters. It is plain nonsense that we should be subject to the silly behaviour that characterised the consideration of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill at an earlier stage on the Floor of the House, provoking an almost equally unacceptable attempt by the Government to curtail debate. That is not a rational way to deal with these matters, and it is time for the House to grow up and recognise that we are simply switching off the public with these performances. We may greatly entertain ourselves—hon. Members on both sides of the House are here because they have been told that they are required to be here, so they make the proceedings light and amusing for themselves—but that attitude to what is essentially an issue of public policy is too self-interested and self-centred.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Buckinghamites naturally tend to protect each other. The right hon. Gentleman referred to my predecessor, who in many ways is an admirable and distinguished fellow. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is not claiming that my predecessor, Mr. George Walden, was supporting the application of the guillotine on these two Bills? Parliament is held in low esteem, perhaps even in public opprobrium, not because of its consideration of these Bills, but because Ministers and Government Back Benchers rarely attend, could not care less what people think, and despise the traditions of this distinguished House.

Mr. Maclennan: The former hon. Member for Buckingham made a better plea than I could in this matter, and he gave a great deal of thought to it. I recommend the article to his successor and suggest that he read it. The former hon. Member did not address the subject of guillotines. What he addressed, squarely, was the issue of the House failing to manage its business in a way that makes sense to the public. In particular, he referred to holding debates after 10 pm. It is not a rational response on the part of his successor to go down the route that he is following tonight.

Mr. David Taylor: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is it not ambitious to expect the official Opposition to sign up to the principles of rational debate? Is that not as likely as a group of sumo wrestlers signing up to Weight Watchers?

Mr. Maclennan: I live in hope. I have listened to Conservative Members in the House and outside advancing

arguments—more often, perhaps, when in opposition than when in government—for the sensible management of debate.
I served on the Hansard Society committee on the reform of the legislative process, which was chaired by Lord Rippon, a former Member of Parliament for Hexham. That committee put forward ideas that I would commend to the present Administration. They were supported by people of all parties and none as being the way forward.
I grant, and it has always been granted, that Oppositions—I have served more in opposition than in government—have some fear of the loss of time being the loss of an opportunity to hold the Government to account. None the less, the factious use of time simply discredits the process of opposition and makes it seem irrelevant.
When a couple of Bills on which both sides are united on the substance lead to such a partisan exchange, it exacerbates the public disaffection—the switch-off factor. It would be sensible for us all to recognise that before it is too late—before the only serious debates in this country are those that take place not in the Chamber, but with people such as Andrew Marr, Robin Oakley or John Sergeant mediating them. I should prefer to have those debates in the House, under your chairmanship, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and under the chairmanship of the Speaker. This is where we want to hear it happen, but we must have a sense of proportion in deciding which are the big issues. Maastricht has been cited this evening, as has the Scotland Bill. Those were major issues that required and received lengthy debate, but if we inflate matters such as the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill and the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill in the way that occurred tonight and last week, I am afraid that we will go on losing the confidence and respect of the public whom we are trying to serve.

Mr. Christopher Chope: I understand the point made by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) in relation to today's news. Ministers from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are on the Front Bench. The big news that most people are talking about today is the additional £29 million to be given to the dome. Many of my constituents object strongly to that, yet the House has had no opportunity to discuss it. I believe that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross made a similar point, with which I agree.
I could not follow the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument about the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill because that measure did not receive its Second Reading until after 10 pm. I am surprised that he did not object to that. It would not have happened under a Conservative Government. It was a convention under the previous Government that a Second Reading debate would not start after 10 pm. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman tried to make that point.
The Minister's introduction to the debate included specious arguments. She argued that there was an urgent demand for the television licences measure to get on to the statute book. It may now be urgent, but that is because the Government delayed earlier. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) has left, but those of us who practised as barristers recall a time when many


papers, which had been sitting in chambers for longer than they should, changed from routine to urgent. That meant that they had been overlooked, not that an emergency had occurred. If the Minister meant that the Bill was an emergency measure, I remind hon. Members that it has not been pushed through the House on that basis.
Having had a rather leisurely Second Reading debate after 10 pm, the Bill went into Committee. The first day the Committee sat, it spent only half an hour considering the matter before it adjourned and returned after Easter. That is hardly indicative of extreme urgency.

Mr. Fraser: Does my hon. Friend agree that a perfectly adequate ten-minute Bill, which was supported by Conservative Members, was introduced last year to tackle the same issue? Had it been accepted, the Government would not have had to introduce a Bill in such a politically expedient way.

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) introduced a ten-minute Bill which was supported by all parties, but not the Government Front Bench. If the Government were not so proud or foolish, they could have accepted the Bill, which would be on the statute book by now—and 11,000 of my constituents, who will benefit from free licences for those aged over 75, would already be benefiting.

Mr. Bercow: We have reached a significant point in our deliberations. My hon. Friend says that the House's time, which Labour Members claim so jealously to guard, has been frivolously wasted for no other or better reason than the hubris of Ministers.

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is right, as he invariably is. We are considering a serious issue. The more the Government believe that they can push through measures by use of the guillotine, the less attention they will give to whether the Bills should have been introduced in the first place and whether they should have been piecemeal measures.
We would not be discussing the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill if someone had thought more seriously about whether we required a Bill that embraced the needs of Westminster, the royal parks and perhaps other local authority areas. One Bill could have covered all those subjects. Instead, the City of Westminster Bill was introduced in the previous Session and the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill has been introduced in this Session.
We learn from a previous debate that there is every prospect of other local authorities calling for even more legislation because the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill and the City of Westminster Act 1999 will result in displacement of anti-social behaviour to other local authorities. That means that more prime time in the House will be taken up. That could have been avoided if the Government had considered matters in advance. The Minister's argument about the need for urgency does not wash.
Last November, the Chancellor announced that all over-75s would be given a free television licence this autumn, but pensioners are to receive their licence rather later than many of them expected. That is so often the

case with the Government. Be that as it may, free licences will be introduced on 1 November, but, by all accounts, arguments about who would administer the scheme were still taking place in Whitehall in the early months of this year. There would have been no need for the Bill had the Government adopted the common-sense proposition that the over-75s—effectively, the generation of law-abiding, God-fearing citizens that served this country so well in the war—could be trusted to own a television without a licence. There would have been no need for this bureaucracy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman must discuss the allocation of time motion, not the Bill's merits.

Mr. Chope: I was not seeking to discuss the Bill's merits and I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Government could have achieved their objective without legislating. Had they given that more thought, less of our time would have been wasted in considering the Bill.
I look forward to the Minister's explanation of why the first sitting of the Committee considering this urgent legislation lasted only half an hour; the second lasted only an hour and a half. Had it met for a full sitting, consideration could have been completed and the Bill could have returned to the House much sooner.

Mr. Swayne: The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) suggested that greater use be made of pre-legislative scrutiny, which would rely greatly on the expertise of Select Committees. Is it my hon. Friend's estimate that scrutiny of the Bill in Committee would have been much more exhaustive had such a procedure been applied? Therefore, the timetable motion would not have been required.

Mr. Chope: I take my hon. Friend's point; the timetable motion is not required. It represents a macho exercise by the Government—an attempt to satisfy some of their Back Benchers by making a point against my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). That is unnecessary. We know perfectly well that the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill was being discussed last Wednesday—I was speaking to amendment No. 6—and I expected the 10 o'clock motion to be moved by the Government, which would have allowed me to finish my speech and the House to complete its consideration of that important measure. After hearing the Government's reply, we could have dealt with the remaining amendment and proceeded to Third Reading.

Mr. Maclean: Will my hon. Friend comment on the rumour, which was awash in the House that night, that, incompetently, the Government had put Labour Members on a one-line Whip, they had all gone home and were not in the House to vote? The Government did not want the debate to go beyond 10 o'clock because they knew that there may have been a vote on amendment No. 6.

Mr. Chope: I remember discussing that point with my right hon. Friend on that occasion. If one thinks of these proceedings as a game, Conservative Members missed a trick: we were concentrating too hard on the merits of the Bill and not thinking enough about strategy and tactics.

Mr. Bercow: If the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill was so uncontentious that it required


minimal consideration in Committee, why have the Government only now tabled new clause 2? Did that not occur to them before? If not, why not?

Mr. Chope: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has had a chance to read the Committee proceedings, but I have. It is clear from those proceedings that, as a result of comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), the Minister said that she would think about that point. To give her credit, she did think about it and recognised that it was a good point, and that is now reflected in new clause 2.
It has been suggested that the whole purpose of the Report stage of Bills is merely to consider a good many more detailed amendments. We know perfectly well that one of the few opportunities that often arise in the House for the discussion of major issues results from the introduction of new clauses on Report. That is why, on Report, new clauses take priority over amendments. On many a criminal justice Bill, issues relating to, for instance, capital punishment have been presented on Report and we have engaged in major debates here, some of which have lasted all day. The idea that we should curtail Report stages because they are an unimportant part of the legislative process is a dangerous one: it could result in the conferring of substantially more power to the Executive and to the power of the legislature—the true representatives of the people—being much diminished.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend speaks of the importance of considering new clauses. Would he care to reflect on the fact that four of the new clauses selected by the Speaker—from which we assume that they are not bogus or spurious, but are genuine new clauses worthy of debate here—were tabled by Opposition Members, including me, and one was tabled by the Government? In those circumstances, is it not outrageous to curtail debate on these important new clauses?

Mr. Chope: I entirely agree. It is outrageous to curtail debate in this way, and it need never have happened. At the end of tonight's proceedings, we shall probably find that more time has been spent overall on discussing allocation of time motions than would have been spent on discussing the substantive issues contained in the Bills had the Government not tabled those motions. I find it depressing that the Government felt it necessary to table them to try to satisfy their Back Benchers.

Mr. Maclean: It is a question of pique.

Mr. Chope: It shows that the Government no longer command the respect of their Back Benchers and are having to throw them titbits every now and again to try to keep them satisfied. That is an astonishing way to behave, given that the Government have such a large majority.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend will have read in The Times—this is pertinent to the motion—that several Labour Members will be standing down after serving just one term. Does my hon. Friend think that the Government's motive in imposing guillotine motions such

as this—although they destroy the democracy in which we currently serve—is to keep Blair babes, and others who are going to have twins, in the House of Commons?

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend made some excellent comments earlier about "Major's men", a gang of which he was a proud member.

Mr. Bercow: He voted for Redwood.

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend does not want that to be put on the record—[Interruption.] As for Blair's babes, I am the last person who can comment usefully. When I was at school, I was asked to write an essay on the proposition "A Woman's Place is in the Home". I think I was the only person in my year who divided the proposition into different stages in a woman's life. Would it, for example, be appropriate for her to be at home looking after young children and to go out to work later? But perhaps I am straying a bit from the subject of tonight's debate.
The Government had an opportunity to introduce the television licences legislation earlier, if indeed they needed to introduce it at all, but they are now trying to force the Bill through urgently. The Minister said on Second Reading that issues related to the total cost of administering the scheme for free licences would be brought out during the debate in Committee. It is my understanding that those issues have not yet been brought out, and we could have legitimately raised that on Third Reading. I hope that we shall still be able to discuss that during the Third Reading debate, which will be much curtailed as a result of the Government's allocation of time motion.
My constituency contains some 11,000 pensioners over 75, which is more than in any other parliamentary constituency in the country. They are eager to find out how the new scheme for television licences will be administered. Hon. Members will be deprived of the opportunity to raise those issues on Third Reading.
Under the terms of the allocation of time motion, I expect to be able to speak further on amendment No. 6 to the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, which I was speaking to when the House adjourned at 10 o'clock last Wednesday. The major point that has emerged from today's proceedings on these allocation of time motions is that the Government are guilty of proliferating piecemeal legislation. That is the root cause of the problem over the Government's timetable and the allocation of time motions for debating these Bills.
The provisions of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill could have been included in a consolidated measure in common with the City of Westminster Act 1999. If the Government were less regulatory minded, we could have achieved the objective of allowing people aged over 75 to watch television without paying a licence fee, without any need for the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill or the bureaucracy it creates, which will cost some £24 million. Interestingly, that sum is not dissimilar to the extra £29 million that the Government have awarded to the dome—a cause that has little sympathy among the general public.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Those matters are nothing to do with the timetable motion.

Mr. Chope: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Owen Paterson: It is a great pleasure to be called in the debate, and I shall be as brief as I can, as I know that other hon. Members want to speak and time is short.
This is a completely unnecessary guillotine motion. I was here at 10 o'clock on Wednesday last week. Few Labour Members were present. Progress was being made. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) was speaking to amendment No. 6, and the debate was going smoothly. Serious points had been made by my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). To my astonishment, the Labour Whip closed proceedings down and moved the motion that the House be adjourned. That was completely unnecessary. It was a symptom of the fact that the Government and Government Whips in particular have lost control of their Back Benchers. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Maclean: The Back Benchers had gone home.

Mr. Paterson: They had. They wanted to go to bed. I wonder what their constituents think about that. Why were those Members sent here? The debate has been most interesting because it has thrown up major differences on either side of the House. I regard it as a huge honour to be elected to the House. I am allowed to stand here and to say what I like. I am one of 659 people with an enormous privilege: to come here and to speak. That is what Parliament is all about.
I might be a bit of a traditionalist. The first Parliaments were held in Acton Burnell and Shrewsbury in Shropshire. I regard it as a retrograde step that, soon after, Parliament moved to Westminster and has been here ever since. There is always hope that it might move back to Shrewsbury. It is unlikely, but I am prepared to travel from Shropshire to speak, to represent the people of North Shropshire, to say what I think about matters and to give my judgment. I may be wrong. I may be laughed at. I may be shouted down, but that is my role as a Member of Parliament.
I find it extraordinary because people have gone to such trouble to get in here. We all know it because we have all been through the process. We all had to go through the party system, to fight our duff seat, to be councillors and to work our way through our party machines to get in here. It is a long hard slog to become a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Is not the Government's behaviour a much more worrying and sinister phenomenon than my hon. Friend suggests? Is it not a fact that they have become so arrogant with their enormous majority that they do not feel that they need to listen to parliamentary opinion any more? If the going gets a bit rough, they know that they can always pull stumps and guillotine the measure through with their vast docile majority.

Mr. Paterson: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, which I shall come to. The Government do take advantage of their huge majority. My hon. Friend is right. What I

find extraordinary is that many Labour Members are here on a temporary stay. They will not be here for more than one Parliament.

Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it is possible to reconcile the view that we have just heard—that the Government have a large docile majority—with his own view that the reason for the timetabling of the legislation is because the Government have lost control of that large docile majority?

Mr. Paterson: The Government are lazy. It is as simple as that. They are lazy in imposing discipline on their troops. We see that. There are ridiculous objections to the time here. In an earlier debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst pointed out that, on Friday morning, he was here from 9 o'clock until 2.30. I was here in the later stages of that debate. Surely those qualify as civilised hours for a debate, according to all the criteria of the new Labour luvvies. Surely they can all get out of bed in time to be here by 9.30.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Paterson: I am delighted to give way to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North.

Mr. Marsden: South, actually.
I have been listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman's argument. Does he not agree that it is perhaps a sign occasionally of greater maturity among Labour Members that many of them prefer—and, indeed, need—to spend Fridays in their constituencies listening to and representing their constituents, rather than sitting in this place and listening to some of the waffle that we have heard this evening?

Mr. Paterson: That is an important contribution because it shows the difference between the attitudes on both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that he should be visiting his constituency. He should be concerned with his constituents. That is right, but I feel that too many Labour Members are obsessed with face-to-face meetings with their constituents and not with their equal responsibilities here: passing laws that make very important decisions affecting the civil liberties of the citizens of this country.

Mr. Maclean: Is it not the case that, now, almost every second Friday is a non-sitting Friday to enable Members to visit their constituencies and to meet constituents, but that, when we do have sitting Fridays, there is important business before the House? We had two Bills on Friday, which we passed. One was promoted by a Conservative Member and the other by a Labour Member. There was total support from both Front-Bench teams and from hon. Members on both sides of the House. One Bill dealt with the freedom of patients to have doctors' practice investigated. The other tightened up on animal cruelty. It was not waffle or rubbish that Members dealt with on that important Friday, when the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) could not be bothered to be here.

Mr. Paterson: My right hon. Friend makes his point with his usual eloquence. On Friday, he was in the Chamber, speaking and proposing sensible amendments that have improved those two Bills.
It is most important that Labour Members should consider their role. They are more than county councillors or district councillors. Although councillors have a very worthwhile occupation, there is an awful lot more to being an hon. Member than acting as a councillor, by only holding surgeries and paying attention to constituents' nitty-gritty details. Members of Parliament have another role and that role is performed here in the Chamber—by speaking up for constituents.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, South has rights that the 70,000-odd people whom he represents do not have.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has to speak to the timetable motion, not remind us of the duties of Members of Parliament. Most of us know those duties.

Mr. Forth: Those Labour Members do not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not need to be reminded.

Mr. Paterson: I shall follow your stricture, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Bercow: Does not this allocation of time motion admirably explain the mindset of Government Back Benchers—this is utterly germane to the allocation of time motion—in that they are wholly docile in agreeing not to speak about any of the matters for which time is being allocated, but they are utterly outspoken about their selfish right to go home when it suits them?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The allocation of time motion is not about when hon. Members go home—it has nothing to do with that—but about an allocation of time for the legislation that we are about to consider. Hon. Gentlemen must speak to that.

Mr. Paterson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is important to discuss the allocation of time motion in the light of how Labour Members seem to respect parliamentary time. I think that that is the point that Opposition Members are trying to get at.

Mr. Bercow: I certainly comply, immediately and without hesitation, with your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, does my hon. Friend not agree that, if sufficient hon. Members were motivated to comment on powers of seizure, on counterfeit, on offences and penalties on the disclosure of information and related matters, substantially more time than the Government are allocating would be required?

Mr. Paterson: Certainly; and perhaps they would be if it were their own property.
A telling phrase was used in a debate, last year, when one of the Government Back Benchers described himself as a "middle manager", which perhaps explains the difference between Opposition Members and Government Members. We think that our role is to oppose the motion, because we believe that we should be spending our time going through the Bill line by line. In the 1240s, knights came down from Shropshire to Parliament to examine Bills line by line, in the light of their own experience. They did not see themselves as middle managers. [Interruption.]
The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) laughs. One of his predecessors—one of those very first knights from Shropshire—was described by Peter de Montford as being "over independent". The hon. Gentleman should remember that. He has been sent to this place to examine Bills line by line.
We are considering important legislation, affecting confiscation of property—

Mr. Swayne: The Mafia.

Mr. Paterson: I have not come to the Mafia yet.
I am concerned about extending the powers of law and order to the confiscation of private property. The Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill contains dramatic powers on the disclosure of confidential information to the BBC, of all organisations.

Mr. Fabricant: At least the BBC is a public corporation that is governed by royal charter. Is it not also true that the information to which my hon. Friend refers would be disclosed to private corporations contracted under the Bill's terms? Is that not worrying?

Mr. Paterson: That is worrying, but I will not be tempted by my hon. Friend to go into too much of the detail of the Bills, because we are discussing the timetable motion. The Bills deal with serious matters relating to law and order and the disclosure of information.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who is sadly not in his place, made a brief speech earlier, arguing that subjects that are debated in the House should be divided between those that are very important and those that are not. That is a dangerous suggestion. We are here to scrutinise the Executive and hold it to account. The Walsall doctrine, as we might call it, would give power to the Executive to decide what is important.
We have pushed as hard as we can this evening at the Liberal Democrats. The first contribution of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) was about as satisfactory as chewing cardboard and I am afraid that his second contribution did not enlighten us much more.

Mr. Swayne: The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), who is sadly no longer in his place, likened his speech to the Gettysburg address. He said that he had received no representations during the Committee stage from those who would be affected by the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, but the hamburger salesmen who would be affected were inarticulate and unlikely to be in a position to make such representations.

Mr. Paterson: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has also tabled important amendments about language. One problem is that the entrepreneurs who sell their interesting sausages, hot dogs and other goods, including hot nuts, we have been told, speak a lot of foreign languages.

Mr. Stunell: It might be more helpful to remember, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) pointed out, that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and


Westminster (Mr. Brooke)—a Conservative Member who represents those who work in the parks—was keen for the Bill to proceed in its current form and took a dim view of the delays that had taken place. That is a different perspective from that offered by the hon. Member for New Forest, East or West, as the case may be.

Mr. Paterson: There was plenty of time after 10 o'clock last Wednesday evening to sort out the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill. It could have been long behind us and we could be discussing something more interesting and more important. It is unnecessary to be discussing it now.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove had a second shot in this debate. He said that there should be an all-party legislative Committee consisting of Front-Bench and Back-Bench Members from both sides of the House. I thought that that was a pretty accurate description of the House of Commons. It was the most bizarre constitutional suggestion from the Liberal Democrats. We had waited all evening for it, and all that we heard was that the House of Commons should decide these matters.

Mr. Fabricant: The irony is that if there were such a Committee, as proposed by the woolly hatted woolly thinkers along the gangway, its consideration would be guillotined, so there would be no advantage.

Mr. Paterson: We have got nothing out of the Liberal Democrats about how they would sort out the problem.
We are faced with a capacity problem. The Government are trying to crash through 28 Bills in one Session and are tacking on a few private Members' Bills as well. Not long ago, a senior member of the Tory party who had been involved in running legislative programmes during the 1980s told me that it was not possible to get more than 18 Bills through. The Government are trying to crash through 28 when 18 will go into the pot. We are not increasing the time available—if anything we are reducing it, because the luvvies all want to get home to bed by 10 o'clock.
The problem is compounded by the Government's rotten drafting. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), who has just left the Chamber, referred to amendments tabled to the Utilities Bill that were not spoken to. We all know that that Bill had to be ripped up and started again from scratch. Those are problems caused by the Government. We are already overgoverned. We already have too much legislation, too many bureaucrats and too much taxation and the Government are only increasing that.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend commented on the rotten drafting. One can always criticise aspects of drafting, and I have found some measures that the Government have accepted could have been drafted more appropriately. However, the real criticism should not be of the parliamentary draftsmen—who are desperately overstretched by the Government—but of the instructions issued by Ministers on the Utilities Bill, which tried to do far too much and was nonsense, the Transport Bill and the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997.

Mr. Paterson: That is a fair comment. I have sat on the Standing Committee considering the Transport Bill, and elements of that Bill were badly drafted. Mistakes were made.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove mentioned Europe. I am a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, and I wholly admire the Clerks who have to give us a precis of detailed legislation. Even then, we are making mistakes because we do not scrutinise European legislation as we do in the Chamber; or should do, if the Government allowed us the time—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have a timetable motion before us, and I remind the hon. Gentleman again that that is what he must speak to—not other matters in the House. That is not the point before us.

Mr. Paterson: I follow your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am just making the comparison between the need—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) some leeway, but making the point and demonstrating what can happen in other Committees is one thing. Going on and on at great length is something that I cannot permit. We have a narrow timetable motion. If the hon. Gentleman cannot speak to it, he has an option; he can sit down and let someone else be called.

Mr. Paterson: I will follow your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The first guillotine motion was on 11 June 1887, when the House had got bogged down in debates on Ireland for more than three weeks. It is interesting that Gladstone described that as
a further abridgement of parliamentary liberty.

Mr. John Hayes: Long after that guillotine motion was moved, matters concerning the royal parks were debated in this House on 29 November 1926. The then Government saw fit to allow a free and wide-ranging debate on issues similar to those that would be debated tonight, if we had time, in respect of Royal Parks (Trading) Bill. Were not Governments in those days more generous and sensible on matters concerning the royal parks, which are of great concern to us all?

Mr. Paterson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We should be scrutinising the Bill line by line.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend may like to contrast the guillotine introduced in the 19th century to deal with a long-running debate on the Irish question with the debate on the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill, which has not had a Report stage. It had a brief Second Reading, two brief sittings in Committee and no time at all on the Floor of the House. Surely there is a world of difference between the guillotine of the Irish business in the late 1800s and the guillotine of the Bill tonight.

Mr. Paterson: My right hon. Friend makes exactly the right point. The first guillotine was brought in to try to resolve the titanic problems of Ireland, which dominated parliamentary debate throughout the 19th century and have not been resolved now. I shall not refer to Parnell, Gladstone and those involved, as the House will be


familiar with them. These were huge issues, debated at enormous length—and here are we, guillotining a relatively little Bill on television licences. The contrast could not be more dramatic. Gladstone, Lloyd George and Churchill did not make their names by going to bed early at 10 o'clock, but by speaking in this House with great erudition, in great detail and at great length. The Minister is laughing, but this debate is totally unnecessary.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend mentioned the first time that guillotine motions were used following the titanic debates on the Northern Ireland question. How does he contrast those debates, which went on for months, with the debate on the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, which lasted 43 minutes on the Floor of the House on Second Reading and just 35 minutes in Committee? At that stage, the Government say, "Enough is enough, the Blair babes want to go home so we will table a guillotine motion."

Mr. Paterson: There is a real danger that bad law will be passed, as we have seen with some of the other measures that the Government have guillotined. Severe criticisms were made of the Welsh and Scottish referendums, and that could have been because they were guillotined and debate was truncated. Very real criticisms have been made of the treaty of Amsterdam, which was enacted as the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1998, and that was guillotined. I live on the border with Wales and real criticisms have been made there of the Welsh Assembly. I suspect that is because the relevant legislation was crashed through the House without proper parliamentary scrutiny. That is the point—line by line scrutiny is important.
It is worth reminding the House of the wise words of John Biffen, who was a highly esteemed previous Leader of the House and greatly respected on both sides. He was also my predecessor and is now Lord Biffen. He wisely commented:
All Governments are tomorrow's possible Opposition.—[Official Report, 27 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 1088.]
[Interruption.] I am delighted that the Minister has noted that point, but I wonder whether she will take it to heart. She made a brief, dismissive speech and I do not think that she really understands the importance of what we are discussing tonight.

Mr. Maclean: Before my hon. Friend criticises the Minister too much, I should point out that the guillotine motion is not her fault. She has been put up to do a job tonight as a departmental Minister when it should have been the Leader of the House. For the second time today, the right hon. Lady is skulking in her office instead of being at the Dispatch Box justifying the guillotine motions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Which Minister is before us has nothing to do with the motion. I do not want any debate on that issue. I do not like to say it, but the speech of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) is becoming repetitive.

Mr. Paterson: Thank you for that helpful comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Hayes: I am a little disappointed that my hon. Friend has not chosen to consider the issue of the Parks

Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926 in relation to the guillotine motion, so perhaps he will take the opportunity to consider the Parks Regulation Act 1872 in that context. The 1872 Act preceded the introduction of guillotines but had debate proceeded at inordinate length, the then Government might have been moved to introduce guillotines much earlier. Will my hon. Friend give some consideration to the length and nature of the debate in 1872?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want the hon. Gentleman to consider only the timetable motion.

Mr. Paterson: I shall not be tempted by the diversion my hon. Friend offers. There is too much legislation going through the House and the Government are not drafting legislation properly. The only solution is to allow more time for detailed consideration. It is not to try to crash through four Bills in one evening and to curtail debate in this disgraceful manner. I oppose the motion.

Mr. Eric Forth: We have heard some reference to the fact that the Leader of the House has not been seen or heard this evening. Last Thursday, she stunned the House when she announced the business for tonight. She said:
The House is taking a great deal of time discussing legislation that is not contentious and that would not normally require much time in the House.
That was one of the right hon. Lady's main justifications for this evening's motions. She also stated:
No amendments were tabled in Committee to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, which is an important and worthwhile measure to discourage the proliferation of nuclear weapons…the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill was uncontentious and supported by Opposition Members, and the Standing Committee sat only once.
She complained that
seven new clauses, 31 amendments and two new schedules were tabled to take up debating time on the Floor of the House.—[Official Report, 18 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 459.]
"Erskine May" states that consideration of a Bill on Report gives the House an opportunity to consider the text of a Bill "afresh". Does not that statement sanctify the Report stage, and make it clear that it is an opportunity for the House as a whole to consider a Bill after it has been in Committee?
It has been noted already that the Committee stages of the two Bills under consideration were lamentably brief. The Royal Parks (Trading) Bill was not debated on the Floor of the House. It was smuggled surreptitiously through a Second Reading Committee, which sat for only 43 minutes—hardly time to do it justice. Its Standing Committee sat for only 35 minutes, and that was all the consideration given to the Bill before it came to the Floor of the House on Report.
The Standing Committee considering the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill sat twice, for 31 minutes and for 92 minutes. Therefore, neither Bill has had the normal serious consideration in Committee. That would be bad enough, but the Leader of the House seemed to argue that the House should not bother with Report or Third Reading because no amendments had been tabled in Committee.
That is outrageous. Given her vast experience, we look to the Leader of the House for inspiration and guidance. I have been a Member of Parliament for only 17 years and I was a Minister for nine of them. Hon. Members like me look to her for guidance about the conduct of business in the House, but she seems to believe that Bills that have skidded through Committee do not deserve further attention on Report.

Mr. Bercow: The Committee considering the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill sat for just over two hours, but six amendments and new clauses have been tabled for consideration tonight. In the light of what "Erskine May" has to say on the subject, does my right hon. Friend agree that that justifies much longer consideration of the Bill on Report than was given to it in Committee?

Mr. Forth: Any rational person would have thought so, but apparently not. All logic has been stood on its head to justify this vicious attack on the House of Commons by the Government—something that we have come to learn, sadly, is only too typical, but with which we have to deal as best we can on this occasion.
Scant attention in Committee, very brief sittings and no amendments tabled—something in which the Leader of the House seemed to take pride, rather peculiarly—were all bad enough. In addition, the Government insulted the House by scheduling other business before the Report stage of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, so we did not even start debating it until 4.38 pm. To make matters worse, the Government twisted the knife by putting on private business at 7 pm. The net result was that we had only a very little time in which to initiate the Report stage. Even in that short time, progress was made: two groups of amendments were properly dealt with, despite the fact that the Government had insulted the House of Commons by truncating the amount of time available.

Mr. Maclean: Has my right hon. Friend any reason to believe that the Government deliberately curtailed the time available last week to discuss the amendments in an attempt to orchestrate a situation in which they could justify imposing a guillotine motion on it now?

Mr. Forth: That suggests a degree of subtlety and intelligence on the Government's part of which I doubt they are capable. I suspect that this was cock-up, not conspiracy.
I remind my right hon. Friend, who was in his place at the material time that, after the private business, we resumed our debate on the Bill at 9.10 pm and were making progress when the Government pulled the plug at 10 pm. To make this even more incredible, the Minister for the Arts said during the proceedings:
It is proper that we should debate the proposals in the spirit of satisfying Parliament that the legislation proposed by the Government is necessary, well framed, proportionate—that has been mentioned several times—and therefore fit to proceed speedily on to the statute book.

The Minister acknowledged the role that the House of Commons and those of us present were playing in the Bill's consideration. He went on to say:
it is appropriate to proceed as we are this afternoon, and I shall address myself to the amendments.—[Official Report, 17 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 372.]

Mr. Bercow: I do not have the relevant copy of the Official Report in front of me, but would my right hon. Friend confirm my recollection that those sentiments were uttered by the hon. Gentleman at a very early stage in the debate? The inference that we must draw, and the rationale for the allocation of time motion tonight, is that while the hon. Gentleman apparently had infectious enthusiasm at the beginning of the proceedings, he was soon dissuaded by others.

Mr. Forth: What is so mysterious is that the Minister, having acknowledged the relevance and usefulness of the proceedings in which we were engaged at that time, then conspired with his fellow Ministers, and no doubt the Whips, to end the consideration of his own business at 10 o'clock, presumably to send the babes and others home to an early bed, and then forced the Government to come back with a guillotine motion that is forcing the babes to stay up until what I estimate will be 2 o'clock tomorrow morning. I hope that the Minister will be able to face the babes tomorrow, because when they realise that they could have had an early night and got the Bill over and done with, instead of having to sit here until an early hour of the morning because of this ill-thought-out guillotine motion, the Minister and his colleagues will be in real trouble.

Mr. Hayes: If the sequence of events that my right hon. Friend describes is accurate, as it certainly seems from my recollection, surely it returns us to his earlier point about the role of the Leader of the House. He talked about the Leader of the House offering inspiration and guidance. I submit that the Leader of the House should also offer a measure of protection for the rights of the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have appealed for interventions to be brief, and that one is not. Interventions must be quick and sharp.

Mr. Forth: Just like me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Quick and sharp as ever, I shall move on now to—

Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: No, no. I shall not allow my hon. Friend to lead me astray. Following Mr. Deputy Speaker's guidance slavishly, as ever I do, I must move on to the main thrust of my argument. I have completed my preliminary remarks and must now get stuck into the real business.
Let me return to the claim made by the Leader of the House—insouciant, I think, is the only word to describe it—that the matters before us are uncontentious. That is the ultimate insult. Right hon. and hon. Members who sat in previous Parliaments will remember such triumphs of consensual politics as the Child Support Agency and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. Those provisions were shoved through the House on an all-party basis, with agreement


but with brief and inadequate scrutiny. They ended up being some of the worst legislation ever inflicted on our citizenry.
Allegedly uncontentious legislation is some of the worst that exists. I believe that consensus is essentially an evil political concept. Even worse, in the context of the current Parliament's proceedings, when a Bill is deemed uncontentious, we become lazy about it. These two Bills have gone through Committee without proper scrutiny, and now we are told that because they were uncontentious, there is no need to waste the time of the House on debating, scrutinising or seeking to amend them.
That process is passing easily and seductively into the political language. It may be intended to let the babes go home early, but its net result is bad legislation.

Mr. Fabricant: rose—

Mr. Forth: I shall give way, but I am warming to my theme.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he is offering a fine example of how a stitch in time can save nine? So-called non-contentious legislation such as that on the Child Support Agency and dangerous dogs has had to be debated over and over so that it can be amended. If it had been properly debated in the first place, less parliamentary time would have been taken up.

Mr. Forth: That is very likely the case. What makes things worse is the fact that the two Bills that have been impudently described as uncontentious are in fact highly contentious. One need only glance at clause 4 of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill—"Seizure of property"—or clause 5, which is entitled "Retention and disposal". The Bill gives the police considerably increased powers of seizure and confiscation of property from private individuals. That is highly contentious. If the Bill affected any other area of the law, Labour Members—those who bother to be here—would be outraged by the proposal to increase the powers of the police to confiscate property from vulnerable individual members of society. Not this time, however, because we have been told that the Bill is "uncontentious".
The Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill contains measures on "Disclosure of information", which involve supplying the BBC with social security information. The provision includes not only the BBC, however. It states that
the BBC includes any person providing the BBC with services in connection with television licences.
If that is not contentious, I do not know what is. These matters are highly contentious, yet the Government have had the nerve to try to smuggle them through the House and inflict them on a hapless populace on the basis that they are allegedly uncontentious.
We must ask why the Government have seen fit to bring new clause 2 before the House this evening.

Janet Anderson: Conservative Front Benchers asked for it.

Mr. Forth: The Minister—I am glad to see that she is awake—may say that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) asked for it. That is surely some

demonstration that enough was wrong with the Bill for my hon. Friend to spot it and to persuade the Government, in Committee, to change their Bill. The Government still try to persuade us that such Bills are uncontentious, even when they have to be amended.
We are now in a fine pickle. These Bills—one of which did not even receive its Second Reading on the Floor of the House, and both of which went through a brief and truncated Committee stage—arrived for consideration on Report. One was making excellent progress—the Minister himself told us so—but had the plug pulled on it. Yet, when we are about to undertake such detailed consideration as we are allowed by the guillotine, we find that serious outstanding matters will probably not receive the proper attention of the House because there is no time.

Mr. Bercow: Why, in justification of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, have Ministers felt it necessary constantly to denigrate and vilify the hot-dog and hamburger salesmen of the royal parks? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if Ministers—including those who are usually courteous—opt for such a bitter and personal approach in this Chamber against those who do not have the opportunity to defend themselves, they should at least provide time for others—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The purpose of a timetable motion is not to go into the Bill in detail. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is aware of that.

Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If time permits, we shall soon be able to undertake a little bit of detailed scrutiny—once the House has disposed of the guillotine motion. If the House were to give the motion its approval—as I sincerely hope it will not—then we should move to an all too brief consideration of the amendments that have been selected.
The fact that amendments have been selected, especially on the television licensing measure, is proof that Madam Speaker considered that they were worthy of debate on the Floor of the House. Surely, that is all that is needed to show that the matter is serious and substantial and had to be dealt with. However, the Government did not seem to agree. They will restrict the debate so much that it is highly doubtful whether we shall be able to do justice to the amendments that were selected by Madam Speaker herself.
It remains to be seen how much time the Government propose to take to persuade the House of the virtues and necessity of their new clause. That will be a test of the persuasiveness and commitment of Ministers—something of which we have seen little during the debate so far, especially on the part of the absent Leader of the House. However, the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting and the Minister for the Arts are both in their places, ready to help the House through the remaining stages of our proceedings on the measures. They will have their work cut out trying to persuade us that we should dispatch—in the little time available to us under their guillotine—the remaining business set down for the Bills.
That would be bad enough, but, on the television licensing measure, we have to deal not only with new clause 2, which would add a considerable, substantial


and—for all I know—controversial provision, but with other amendments. I tabled two of those that were selected by Madam Speaker—I am flattered by that. The others were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). He, too, has seen fit to try to amend the Bill in order to improve it further. However, I very much doubt whether we shall have the opportunity to do that at this stage.
Sadly, the House finds itself in an invidious position. We shall almost certainly be unable to devote a proper amount of time to the amendments, even though they were selected by Madam Speaker and thus, by definition, relevant and important. We may well have to rely on another place—I hate to hear myself say that—to give proper scrutiny to the Bill. If we in the House of Commons cannot adequately discharge our responsibility to scrutinise legislation, and if the Government persist in introducing guillotines, with all their arrogance and contempt for the House, I can but conclude that, in order to do justice to the parliamentary process of scrutiny, we shall have to look to Members in another place to undertake the job that we are proved unable to do. I regret that. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I try to play my modest part in the scrutiny of Bills. I do my best, as do my—

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): The right hon. Gentleman is in opposition now.

Mr. Forth: The right hon. Gentleman, whom I welcome to the Chamber, suggests in an accusatory tone that I am in opposition. I had rumbled that fact and I have now come to appreciate it. He has known me for many years and in many different guises, and I tell him that I take my job in opposition seriously. I regard it as one of my duties to do what I can properly to scrutinise legislation and properly to hold the Government to account. Yes—I say this in the House, so it will not go any further—I admit that I occasionally seek to delay the Government imposing more and more legislation on my hapless voters. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends do the same thing. Is the right hon. Gentleman accusing me of something of which I should be ashamed because the truth could not be more different? I see that he seems to be endorsing what I do in opposition and I am grateful for that.
The Minister for the Arts has put on the record how he appreciated and approved of what we did in our scrutiny of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill and the Minister for Trade, who has joined the debate at this late hour, has endorsed my description of what I seek to do in opposition. I could not seek for any greater support.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend has rightly castigated the Government for their restrictions on debate. Given that 13 new clauses and amendments have been selected for debate on the Bills, will he estimate how long he thinks it will take the House to give proper consideration on Report and Third Reading to those new clauses and amendments if every Member in the Chamber were willing to make a short contribution?

Mr. Forth: I shall provide two estimates that are relevant to the guillotine motion, which is about timetabling.

My first estimate is based on the progress that we made on the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill last week and demonstrated that we could make. Two groups of amendments were dispatched between 4.38 pm and 7 pm and we gained the praise of the Minister for the Arts for that. We were well through the third group, on which we are about to resume debate, when the Government pulled the plug on us. Therefore, on that basis, I estimate that, last week, we could have probably dispatched all the Bill's stages by 11.30 pm or midnight at the latest.
My hon. Friend poses an even less likely scenario. If docile Labour Members and the absent babes—were they to be here—were capable of making speeches, which few of them are, and if they wanted to participate in the proceedings of the House, which few of them do, I suspect that it might take longer to complete our proceedings. However, because few Labour Members turn up, none of them choose to speak and the few who are capable of speaking have been silenced by their Whips, I do not think that we can expect what my hon. Friend suggests. That is a cause of great disappointment to me. Although the Government Whips smile with smug satisfaction at their silencing of their colleagues, it does little credit to the House that they have been so successful. Ministers may smile to themselves as well, but it does them no credit that they rely on a vicious guillotine of the type that we are debating to ram through the House the Bills that they expect us to endorse.
My final point to Ministers is that they should not expect the other place to treat the Bills as lightly as they have forced this House to treat them. The Government will be held to account if not in this House, then in another place—and so they should be. I predict that that unpleasant surprise will await them when the Bills reach—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83 (Allocation of time to bills).

The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 109.

Division No. 204]
[11.54 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Atkins, Charlotte
Cann, Jamie


Austin, John
Caplin, Ivor


Banks, Tony
Casale, Roger


Barnes, Harry
Caton, Martin


Bayley, Hugh
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Beard, Nigel
Clapham, Michael


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bennett, Andrew F



Berry, Roger
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Blackman, Liz
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Blizzard, Bob
Clwyd, Ann


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Coaker, Vernon


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bradshaw, Ben
Cohen, Harry


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Colman, Tony


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Connarty, Michael


Browne, Desmond
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Burden, Richard
Corbyn, Jeremy


Burgon, Colin
Cousins, Jim


Butler, Mrs Christine
Crausby, David






Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cummings, John
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)



Keeble, Ms Sally


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dalyell, Tam
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Darvill, Keith
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Khabra, Piara S


Davidson, Ian
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Dawson, Hilton
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Dean, Mrs Janet
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Donohoe, Brian H
Laxton, Bob


Doran, Frank
Lepper, David


Dowd, Jim
Levitt, Tom


Drew, David
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Efford, Clive
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Ennis, Jeff
Linton, Martin


Etherington, Bill
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Lock, David


Fisher, Mark
McAvoy, Thomas


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McCabe, Steve


Flint, Caroline
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Flynn, Paul
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Follett, Barbara



Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McDonagh, Siobhain


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Macdonald, Calum


Fyfe, Maria
McDonnell, John


Galloway, George
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gerrard, Neil
McIsaac, Shona


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Godsiff, Roger
Mackinlay, Andrew


Goggins, Paul
McNulty, Tony


Golding, Mrs Llin
MacShane, Denis


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mactaggart, Fiona


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mallaber, Judy


Grocott, Bruce
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Grogan, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hain, Peter
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hanson, David
Martlew, Eric


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Maxton, John


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Meale, Alan


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Merron, Gillian


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hepburn, Stephen
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Heppell, John
Mitchell, Austin


Hesford, Stephen
Moffatt, Laura


Hill, Keith
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hinchliffe, David
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hoey, Kate
Morley, Elliot


Hope, Phil
Mountford, Kali


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mudie, George


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Mullin, Chris


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Olner, Bill


Hurst, Alan
O'Neill, Martin


Hutton, John
Pearson, Ian


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pendry, Tom


Illsley, Eric
Perham, Ms Linda


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pike, Peter L


Jamieson, David
Plaskitt, James


Jenkins, Brian
Pond, Chris


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Purchase, Ken



Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce





Quinn, Lawrie
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rammell, Bill
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rapson, Syd
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Raynsford, Nick
Tipping, Paddy


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Touhig, Don


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Trickett, Jon


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Roy, Frank
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Ruane, Chris
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Salter, Martin
Tynan, Bill


Sarwar, Mohammad
Vis, Dr Rudi


Savidge, Malcolm
Walley, Ms Joan


Sedgemore, Brian
Ward, Ms Claire


Singh, Marsha
Wareing, Robert N


Skinner, Dennis
Watts, David


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)




Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wilson, Brian


Soley, Clive
Winnick, David


Spellar, John
Wood, Mike


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Woolas, Phil


Steinberg, Gerry
Wray, James


Stevenson, George
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wyatt, Derek


Stinchcombe, Paul



Stoate, Dr Howard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Mr. Clive Betts and


Stringer, Graham
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gill, Christopher


Amess, David
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bercow, John
Green, Damian


Beresford, Sir Paul
Greenway, John


Blunt, Crispin
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Boswell, Tim
Hammond, Philip


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hawkins, Nick


Brady, Graham
Hayes, John


Brazier, Julian
Heald, Oliver


Browning, Mrs Angela
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Burns, Simon
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Hunter, Andrew



Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Cash, William
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Key, Robert



Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Chope, Christopher
Leigh, Edward


Clappison, James
Letwin, Oliver


Collins, Tim
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lidington, David


Cotter, Brian
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Cran, James
Llwyd, Elfyn


Curry, Rt Hon David
Loughton, Tim


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Day, Stephen
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Faber, David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fabricant, Michael
Madel, Sir David


Fearn, Ronnie
Nicholls, Patrick


Flight, Howard
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Ottaway, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Paterson, Owen


Fox, Dr Liam
Pickles, Eric


Fraser, Christopher
Randall, John


Gale, Roger
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Garnier, Edward
Rendel, David


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Robathan, Andrew


Gibb, Nick
Robertson, Laurence


Gidley, Sandra
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)






Ruffley, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


St Aubyn, Nick
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Sanders, Adrian
Tredinnick, David


Sayeed, Jonathan
Trend, Michael


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Tyrie, Andrew


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Webb, Steve


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Spicer, Sir Michael
Whittingdale, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilkinson, John


Steen, Anthony
Willis, Phil


Streeter, Gary



Stunell, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Swayne, Desmond
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown


Syms, Robert
and


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mr. Peter Luff.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill and the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill—

Timetable

1.—(1) Remaining proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and brought to a conclusion (if not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

(2) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and brought to a conclusion (if not previously concluded) five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

Questions to be put

2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on either Bill to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.

(2) The Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(4) If two or more Questions would otherwise fall to be put under sub-paragraph (2)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

Miscellaneous

3. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply at today's sitting to proceedings to which this Order applies.

4. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on either Bill are taken or to recommit either Bill.

6. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to either Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

7. If at today's sitting—

(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Seven o'clock; but
(b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before then,

proceedings on that Motion shall stand postponed until the conclusion of those proceedings.

8. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to either Bill.

Supplemental orders

9. The proceedings on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (if not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.

10. If at today's sitting the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Orders of the Day — Royal Parks (Trading) Bill

Not amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

After Clause 3

Amendment proposed [17 May]: No. 6, in page 2, line 4, to leave out clauses 4 and 5—[Mr. Maclean.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I remind the House that with this we are discussing the following: Amendment No. 28, in page 2, line 13, at end insert—
'(4) Where a park constable exercises his powers under subsection (1) above he shall—

(a) ensure that he provides facilities for the safe removal from the park of any perishable material by the person having possession or control;
(b) give to the person having possession or control a document, in an appropriate language, setting out the reasons for the seizure, itemising the things seized and informing the person of his rights and liabilities under section 5; and
(c) not remove any article until he has performed an assessment under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations that the removal of the thing or things would not create a hazard for his or others' health and safety.


(5) The document referred to in subsection (4)(b) above shall comply with the model in Schedule (Document relating to seizure of property).'.
Amendment No. 22, in page 2, line 20, after "at", insert "or before".
Amendment No. 23, in page 2, line 26, at end insert—
'(3A) Proceedings arising from subsections (1) to (3) (including appeals) shall be concluded within a period of three months, after which the charges shall be withdrawn, or appeal deemed to have succeeded.'.
Amendment No. 24, in page 2, line 30, leave out from first "of' to second "of" and insert—
'60 days beginning with the date of the initiation'.
Amendment No. 25, in page 2, line 35, at end insert—
'(5A) If the Secretary of State has retained a thing under subsection (3)(b) for the period of 60 days from the initiation of proceedings relating to the offence (including any appeal), he shall return it to the person from whom it was seized.'.
Amendment No. 7, in clause 6, page 3, line 2, leave out from "anything" to end of line 8 and insert—
'which the court believes to have been used in commission of the offence to be forfeited and dealt with in a manner specified in the order.'.
New schedule 2—`SCHEDULE—

Document Relating to Seizure of Property

'(1) Appropriate Language.

An appropriate language in section 4(4)(b) is one of the following:

English
French
Spanish
Albanian
Arabic

Armenian
Azeri
Belarussian
Bulgarian
Croatian (the western variant of Serbo-Croat—also called Croato-Serb)
Estonian
Georgian
Greek
Hungarian
Kurdish
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Romanian
Russian
Serbian (the eastern variant of Serbo-Croat)
Serbo-Croat
Slovak
Slovene
Turkish
Ukrainian.

(2) Reasons for Seizure.

The reasons for the seizure are that the person having possession or control has committed a Park Trading Offence, namely (insert offence).

(3) List of Items Seized.

(List the items seized)

(4) Rights and Liabilities.

The person having possession or control and from whom the thing or things were seized shall be informed that—

(a) the Secretary of State may retain the thing or things until the conclusion of court proceedings;
(b) the Secretary of State may sell the thing or things and use the proceeds to pay his costs if the person having possession or control is found guilty of an offence;
(c) the court may order the thing or things to be forfeited and destroyed if found guilty of an offence;
(d) the person having possession of the thing or things may make representations to the court about their disposal before the court makes an order.'.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Last Wednesday, I was interrupted by the Government, who were obviously nervous about further debate on the Bill. We could have covered the ground in a short time then. However, I can assure the House that I shall not take up the whole hour that has been allocated.
The amendments, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) so ably moved, raise some important issues. Clauses 4 and 5 are likely to have unintended consequences. We want to achieve the highest catering standards in our royal parks.
It emerged that there are insufficient vendors of such goods in the royal parks, as the Minister said:
Licensed traders are losing a significant amount of business. Their turnover has been substantially reduced—by about 50 per cent. since the mid-1990s.—[Official Report, 17 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 373.]
He added that illegal traders are proliferating and making as much as £1,200 a day. I asked him how clauses 4 and 5 will deal with the problem in practice, as the parks police will be able to seize the carts but not the perishable


goods. So the Bill contains a deterrent against the parks police acting effectively and pre-emptively by seizing carts as soon as they pass through the gates. I cannot understand why they seem to tolerate carts being set up, large queues forming and vending taking place. Why do not they seize the illegal carts as soon as they enter the parks?

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I may be able to help my hon. Friend. I understand that the Bill will require an arresting officer to separate the imperishable machine from its perishable contents. He may have to remove the boiling fat to impound a vendor's machine.

Mr. Chope: I am sure that my hon. Friend's reading of the Bill is correct, and I suggest that the Government rethink the proposal. They should amend the Bill before it goes to the other place to enable the parks police to seize perishable goods as well, or the lacuna will defeat the object.
In the past month, I dealt with a constituency case relating to gypsies. The police on the ground have to deal with the legislation passed by the House; and passing legislation raises people's expectations—in this example, those of people affected by gypsies. As soon as the gypsies arrive, the police say, "There are all sorts of practical constraints on what we are able to do. We need hundreds of officers. Where shall we move the vehicles to? What shall we do about the women and children and access for the emergency services?" When I visited my local police station I was told, "Unfortunately, the legislation that you passed in the House of Commons is not much practical use in this situation." I fear that we are entering the same territory with these provisions.

Mr. John Bercow: How can the Minister guesstimate the daily turnover of the average trader in a royal park when he is unable to tell us the prices of their products or the volume of their daily sales?

Mr. Chope: I hope that the Minister can answer my hon. Friend. Government spokesmen have been quick to say that rip-offs take place, but I cannot understand whether the general public are deterred from buying goods from authorised vendors because of the price or because there are too few such vendors in the parks. Both explanations are possible, but people seem to choose to buy from illegal vendors despite unclean conditions and what the Minister would describe as rip-off prices.

Mr. David Maclean: In this week of the Chelsea flower show, when the prices of hamburgers and hot dogs at Chelsea are higher than those charged by vendors in the royal parks, who is committing the rip-off? Might it not appear that those selling the hot dogs and hamburgers have a rather competitive commodity?

Mr. Chope: My right hon. Friend makes a good point.
One of the problems may well be that the royal parks must recover from the licence fees that they charge their authorised vendors sufficient money to be able to continue

their other responsibilities. If we burden the parks police with the extra expense involved in having to look after the goods that have been seized, and storing them so that they can be restored if the courts make an order in due course, how will the additional costs be recovered other than by the imposition of increased fees on authorised and licensed vendors? I suspect that one of the biggest rip-offs in the royal parks now is caused by the fact that the licence fee that authorised vendors must pay is far higher than it should be, and that, if it were lower, charges to customers could be reduced.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the amendment.

Mr. Chope: I accept your reprimand, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. John Hayes: Nevertheless, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend is right, in the strict terms of the amendment, to draw attention to the issue of enforceability. As you will know, that issue has punctuated consideration of our governance of the royal parks throughout our dealings with the subject. I refer again to the 1872 and 1926 Acts that I mentioned earlier, and, in particular, would ask my hon. Friend to recall Second Reading of the Bill, when precisely this issue was raised.

Mr. Chope: I shall leave my hon. Friend to make his own speech, which he is extremely well qualified to do. I observe that he has brought some thick tomes into the Chamber. My point is limited to the practicality of what the Government propose. I fear that, in due course, there will be a demand for fresh, amended legislation, because the Bill in its current form will not achieve the purpose that the Government intend.
What could be simpler than this? Anyone who is a potential illegal vendor takes his cart into the park; as soon as he enters the gates, he should be arrested. It should be possible for both the cart and the perishable items on it to be seized and taken away. If that happens regularly, it will not be long before people do not even bring their carts in.
I suspect that the parks police will be inhibited about seizing the property as soon as it enters the park, because they will not know what to do with the perishable items. If the vendor sells some of those items, there will be less of a problem for the parks police to pick up later. As a consequence, the parks police will not be so quick to make seizures and the illegal trading will continue, as will the £1,200 a day that these people can make.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I am at a loss to understand what all the fuss is about. I pass these vendors hundreds of times, and I have never been tempted to buy the disgusting, revolting, smelly rubbish that they sell. Why on earth do we need legislation?

Mr. Maclean: Very tasty, I think.

Mr. Chope: I am confining my remarks to the context of this group of amendments. I know that engaging in a Second Reading debate would not find favour with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; that is why I am not challenging the


principle of the Bill. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), I am a great believer in the marketplace. I suspect that at present there is insufficient legitimate provision of hamburgers and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is about to do what he said he was not going to do.

Mr. Chope: I am sorry that my hon. Friend tempted me in that direction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Leigh: I apologise.

Mr. Chope: No, I will accept the responsibility.
I know that many of my hon. Friends are keen to speak, but let me tell them that I think it would be worth while if, in this curtailed debate, we allowed the Minister sufficient time to answer some of the points that have been made.

Mr. Nicholls: We were told earlier that we do not need to have this debate as this matter is uncontentious. We can do no better than look at the headings on Madam Speaker's selection list of amendments to realise that nothing could be further from the truth. The first is:
Powers of seizure, retention and disposal of property.
I cannot think of anything more contentious than seizure of privately owned property, which is retained and disposed of by the state. Amendments Nos. 6, 28, 22 to 25 and 7 deal with that issue, but if the legislation had been properly thought through, it could have been addressed in the Bill.
The amendments deal with the legislative brutality of the Bill. Clause 4 could be straight out of Monty Python. It states:
A park constable who reasonably suspects that a person has committed a park trading offence may, subject to subsection (2), seize anything of a non-perishable nature.
When policemen try to seize anything of a non-perishable nature they do so at their own risk.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, consider what might happen if you were a special constable and you went into the park to try to seize goods of an non-perishable nature. That may seem unlikely, but it makes the point. You may be confronted by a hot-dog van. I have never prepared hot dogs in a royal park—it has never come to that—but I assume that it requires a vat of boiled fat. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) seems to think that hot dogs are greasy. What is a policeman supposed to do? Is he supposed to say that he will seize the vat but not the fat? Is he supposed to require the fat to be emptied out of the container before he can seize it? Is he supposed to do that himself? Is he supposed to require the person to whom it belongs to empty the fat for him?

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Under the new schedule that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has tabled, is the policeman required to ask the vendor to remove the fat in a western variant of Serbo-Croat?

Mr. Nicholls: I knew my hon. Friend was going to ask me that, and I am grateful to him—I will see him

afterwards. I shall deal with new schedule 2 later. Although it is the inspiration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), I am not sure that it is as good as the other amendments in the group.

Mr. Bercow: Amendment No. 28(c) refers to
an assessment under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations.
There are important arguments about the seizure of property and the rights of the private person, but why should a constable imperil his health in the removal of said property on the assumption that he is wearing a pair of gloves and a mask?

Mr. Nicholls: The formula to be used on these occasions is to say that my hon. Friend will make his own speech in his own way. I shall come on to the COSHH regulations, because they are relevant under paragraph (c) of amendment No. 28. Before I get there, however, it is important to consider the dilemma that will face an officer who is about to seize goods of a non-perishable nature.
There is no requirement in the legislation for an officer to do that. It merely says that he "may": it does not say that he shall. It does not require him to seek the assistance of the person to whom this equipment belongs. There is a right at common law for any officer making an arrest in the execution of his duty to require a passing member of the public to help him in that seizure. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough is a barrister, so he can confirm that. It seems inconceivable that a policeman could require some passer-by to help him to seize an errant hot-dog van with a view to getting rid of the fat, so that he is left with equipment of a non-perishable nature.
I say that not in a misplaced attempt at levity, but to make the following point. I did not always have to come here to earn a living. I used to have an honest day job: I was a lawyer. I was a humble country lawyer—well, a country lawyer. One of the things that I had to do was deal with legislation passed by the House which simply had not been thought through. This legislation has not been thought through in any shape or form. The idea that the legislation enables a policeman practically or safely to go around arresting and seizing equipment owned by hot-dog vendors is nonsense.

Mr. Maclean: I had a feeling that my hon. Friend was about to pass on. Before he does so, has he an answer to the question that was posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) when we debated the matter the last time? What advice does he give to the policeman, or to the chestnut seller who finds that his hot brazier has been confiscated and then must find somewhere to put his hot nuts?

Mr. Nicholls: I know that the formula on this occasion is not to follow my right hon. Friend, but it is a fair point. The legislation is for all practical purposes unworkable. If any hot-dog vendor was concerned that his equipment would be seized, he could ensure that the perishable and non-perishable elements were so intermingled as to make it impossible.
To be fair to my right hon. Friend, he has in his amendments anticipated the problems that the measure would cause. I draw the House's attention to amendment No. 28:
Where a park constable exercises his powers—
one might say at his peril—
under subsection (1) above he shall—
(a) ensure that he provides facilities for the safe removal from the park of any perishable material by the person having possession or control.
Indeed, but how is that to take place? I do not blame my right hon. Friend for posing that question. He puts down the obligation, but had the matter been properly thought through by Treasury counsel, that would have been addressed. I know why it has not been addressed. I will come to that point, but the next point that my right hon. Friend makes is so absolutely self-evident that one wonders again why the Government did not deal with it themselves.
The amendment says that the park constable shall
give to the person having possession or control a document, in an appropriate language.
I can see from new schedule 2 that a number of languages are selected for that purpose. They include English, French, Spanish, Albanian, Arabic, Armenian, Azeri, Belarussian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Estonian, Georgian, Greek, Hungarian, Kurdish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Slovak, Slovene, Turkish and Ukrainian. I wondered how that would address the situation of a hot-dog seller who had decided to diversify into curry. I did not understand why there was no reference to Urdu, Gujerati, or a language such as those. I understand from my right hon. Friend that he chose that formula because the Minister had opined that the legislation was being introduced on the assumption that all dodgy hot-dog vendors are Albanian.
If I made such a remark outside the House, or even inside it, I would be accused of being racist, but my right hon. Friend has had to draft legislation to deal with the Minister's preconception and, indeed, obsession with the idea that anyone who is trying to earn a modest living as a hot-dog vendor in a royal park is likely to be able to understand only eastern European languages. I find that remarkable. The only criticism that I have of my right hon. Friend is that it seems that he has not considered that the various languages that he has listed in new schedule 2 may not be sufficient, but it is a fair point all the same.
The next point is perhaps the most important in relation to amendment No. 28. It says that the park constable shall
(c) not remove any article until he has performed an assessment under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations that the removal of the thing or things would not create a hazard for his or others' health and safety.
When I read that, I felt young again. I felt that my lines were going—I felt young and vital. I recognised those very words from all those years ago, when I was the Minister in charge of the Health and Safety Executive. Once upon a time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, too, was young. I think that he is casting his mind back to those days, when he, too, was responsible for assessments under what are now known as the COSHH regulations.
12.30 am
Those who are not familiar with the COSHH regulations might think that they cover not so much vats of fat as vats of sulphuric acid. However, that is not true. As many small business men know, any substance on their premises that might be hazardous to health—even vats of stored water—have to be assessed under the COSHH regulations. That issue has not been addressed in the Bill. Are we really in the business of requiring our brave police officers to have to arrest hot-dog vendors without performing the type of assessment under the COSHH regulations that people in other situations are required to make? I think not. The issue should have been addressed in the Bill, but it has not.
I am not sure that the drafting of amendment No. 28 is exactly right. However—to be fair to my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border—what is one to do with a Bill that is so woefully drafted that one has to bolt on provisions that should have been thought through in its very philosophy?

Mr. Bercow: May I direct my hon. Friend's attention to amendment No. 25, one of the possible merits of which is that, in seeking to limit the period in which the non-perishable goods remain confiscated from the vendor, the vendor will thereby at least have the chance to make his own legitimate living—whereas if clause 5 were not to be amended, the likelihood is that, for a very significant and possibly unlimited time, while the vendor was struggling to pay the costs due to the Secretary of State, he would be prevented from making a living? That cannot, on the face of it, be justified or in accordance with the Government's protestations of supporting the underdog.

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is exactly right, and he takes me on to the next amendments in this group. His mistake, however, is to impute to the Government a desire to help small business men to stand on their own two feet. He says that he is not sure that the clause will enable them to do that, but I think that he is being misled by his own good intentions. I do not find anything in the Bill—in its structure or its ethos—that indicates for one moment that the Government are trying to help small business men. What they are trying to do is to suppress small business men. That is what the Bill is all about.
A moment or two ago, I said that I had been trying to work out what it was about the thinking behind the Bill that was so defective that the Government would propose the legislation, but overlook considerations of practical points such as COSHH regulations and the appropriate language for the warning document. I think that it comes down to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said a little earlier about the danger of consensus. The Bill was never meant to be scrutinised. The mind behind the Bill—if one can talk about such a thing in relation to this Bill—never considered the legislation's practical consequences, such as the dangers inherent in requiring police to go round confiscating such equipment and the effects of such action on small traders. The Bill was not drafted for that purpose.
The Bill was drafted to be passed on the nod. It was drafted on the assumption that the Government had only to propose mild-sounding legislation—the type that enables some hon. Members to make cheap remarks about


people who have to earn a living in a far harder way than hon. Members have to—that could be passed not so much on the nod as on the sneer. That is the way in which this legislation was designed. What my right. hon. and hon. Friends and I have tried to do is to show that that is simply not acceptable, and that we are right to perform our duty of scrutiny.

Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friend has mentioned the suppression of small business men. He will be aware that the Bill's supporters have alleged that the vendors who will be affected by it are, far from being small business men, the representatives of organised crime—the mafia has been mentioned. Does not that in itself constitute a hazard of which the arresting officer would do well to be aware?

Mr. Nicholls: It may do, but one must bear in mind the fact that when the Home Secretary was working up his policies for a new Government for a new millennium, he saw squeegee merchants as public enemy No. 1. For all I know, they may now have diversified into selling hot dogs in royal parks, but they were providing a service. I have never felt threatened by a squeegee merchant. I find it quite useful to have my windscreen cleaned when I am at a level crossing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure that those merchants are the subject of the amendments before the House.

Mr. Nicholls: I accept that. As so often, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) tempts us down forbidden ways. The same thinking that made squeegee merchants a substantial public threat underlies the idea that someone who is selling economically priced burgers might also be a substantial threat.
What do amendments Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 25 do? Nothing very revolutionary or extraordinary. One might have thought that their provisions would have been contained in a Bill that sanctions the seizure and disposal of other people's property. Amendment No. 23 says:
Proceedings arising from subsections (1) to (3) (including appeals) shall be concluded within a period of three months, after which the charges shall be withdrawn, or the appeal deemed to have succeeded.
That merely means that someone whose equipment has been seized should be prosecuted within a reasonable period. That principle goes with the grain of British law. It does not go with the grain of nobbling the police to go easy on people who are trying to demonstrate about one of the most ruthless criminal regimes in the world, but it goes with the grain of English common law. If someone is not prosecuted within a reasonable period, that should be an end of the matter.
What happens to a person's property if they are not prosecuted? Under the Bill, nothing will happen to it. The state has seized it and that is the end of it. Amendment No. 25 says:
If the Secretary of State has retained a thing under subsection (3)(b) for the period of 60 days from the initiation of proceedings relating to the offence (including any appeal), he shall return it to the person from whom it was seized.
Again, that does not strike me as a revolutionary proposition. If we take people's equipment away from them and then not use it—the mind boggles at the idea of

the Secretary of State doing a bit of trading on his own account—surely there should be some provision for its return. The amendment does just that.
I would like to think well of the Minister. I have known him for a number of years and I would like to think that he has listened to the debate and will cast his mind back to the principles that he once held dear. I hope that he thinks that a Bill that he is putting through the House to seize private property might benefit from the inclusion of some provision for the return of that property. It might benefit from having some decent British lawfulness built back into it.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Does my hon. Friend think that the Bill is getting at the wrong people? Last Wednesday, the Minister pointed out that very little cash is found on the people concerned, because there is a system of runners to take the money back to those who control them. He said later that
the police should make every effort to get the racketeers who lie behind the trade.—[Official Report, 17 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 374.]
Does my hon. Friend think that we might just be scratching the surface—the poor innocents who are handing out the hot dogs—rather than getting at the big men with the money who are running those illegal businesses?

Mr. Nicholls: I try to wrestle with the concept of Mr. Big—the sort of person who slips £1 million to somebody for changing party policy. I understand that big money can sometimes be involved, but I do not think that there is big money involved in flogging hamburgers. Perhaps I chose the wrong trade when I went into law.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is a very sophisticated fellow, but I fear that he is missing one point. Is not his advocacy of the amendments characterised by moderation and reasonableness, rather in the style of the advocacy of our hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) in support of the Bill, whereas the stance and style of the Minister, for all his other attractive qualities, has been characterised at heart by a deep-rooted and snobbish disdain for the traders?

Mr. Nicholls: There is consistency in some things, as my hon. Friend is right to point out. It is perhaps a sign of the times that those small traders—the sort of people who cannot afford to pay £500 to go to a Labour party fund-raising function—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now straying way wide of the mark. I would be grateful if he would come back specifically to the amendment.

Mr. Nicholls: I was simply trying to make the point—I accept that I did not do so appropriately—that the Bill, with all its inadequacies, says something about the attitude of the party that proposed it to people who are in as small a business as this.
I would like to think that the Minister would build back into the Bill some sense of fairness and practicality. If not, there remains the other place. We know that the other place was not thought to be a problem for a Bill of this sort. It was thought that, following the creation of a house of cronies, there would be no scrutiny. The other place


has surprised us all, and probably even itself. When it looks at this debate, I think that it will say that this is a cause worth championing. I hope the other place will see it in that way.

Mr. John Greenway: This has been an important debate. My right hon. and hon. Friends have tried to address whether the clauses as drafted have the desired effect, or whether—because there appears to be no power to seize perishable goods—there is some practical imperfection that will render the operation of the police in implementing the Bill almost impossible.
When I first read the Bill, I had a similar concern. The practical answer is that, in reality, this presents no difficulty. As the Minister has said, within the City of Westminster—where the power already exists—police officers or council officials invite the trader to have the perishable goods removed. Because the goods have value, they are, by and large, removed.
I contrast the powers given to the police under the Bill with the more general powers of the arrest of illegal traders who are, for example, causing an obstruction. I have referred to my practical experience more than 30 years ago of dealing with such traders. In those days, the police did not have a power of seizure. The practical solution was that, if a hot-dog trader was arrested for causing an obstruction somewhere in the west end of London, it was perfectly natural that he would take his cart and the perishable goods to the police station. Otherwise, the chances were that it would not be there when he came back. No power of seizure was required for that practical solution.
The power of seizure adds an important weapon to the armoury of the authorities. The hot-dog stand will be taken off to a police station while the person's arrest is properly documented, whereupon he will take the cart away with him to pursue his illegal trade further. The power of seizure means that the trader no longer has that opportunity, as the police will seize the item at the police station, and the perishable goods can be removed.
12.45 am
I understand that there appears to be a practical difficulty, but the arrangements in the City of Westminster seem to work perfectly normally. The Bill will replicate those arrangements in the royal parks, and I hope that my hon. Friends will be persuaded that no substantial practical difficulty exists.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) asked why items should not be seized as they arrive in the royal parks. The answer to that splendid suggestion is that, under the royal parks regulations, traders commit no offence until they start to trade. One benefit that might emerge from tonight's debate is that the House may revisit some of the issues involved. Reframing the powers available to police, and the offences for which prosecutions may be brought, could make the campaign against illegal traders even more effective.

Mr. Chope: Schedule 1 to the Royal Parks and Gardens Act 1872 makes it an offence to
drive or wheel into a park any vehicle, barrow, truck, or machine not admitted therein by the rules of the park.
Does my hon. Friend accept that?

Mr. Greenway: I do, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said that stepping on the shrubbery or the gardens is also an offence, and I accept that, too. However, my understanding is that that is not classed as a trading offence, so the powers that the Bill gives to the Royal Parks Constabulary would not apply to that particular offence. I believe that that also applies to the point raised by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friends have raised important, practical issues. Some of the matters that they have raised go beyond the scope of the Bill, and need to be dealt with on another occasion.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Alan Howarth): I am grateful for the opportunity to respond, in the few minutes that remain for this debate, to a number of matters raised by Conservative Members. Our proceedings on the Bill might have been more extensive if less time had been spent discussing the principle of the guillotine, but the amendments and the new schedule allow me to respond to the concerns raised, in a spirit of practicality, by Conservative Members.
Amendment No. 6 is exciting, as it would delete two major clauses. However, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who tabled the amendment, explained that he drives his coach and horses with an intent to probe, rather than to wreck. The powers of seizure, retention and sale provided in the two clauses that his amendment would knock out are essential. Fines alone, or fines plus the possibility of forfeiture in due course, would not be enough to deter the activity with which we seek to deal.
I remind right hon. and hon. Members that the powers that we seek are broadly similar—in practical terms, they are identical—to those that Parliament very recently enacted in the City of Westminster Act 1999.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) wanted to know, very reasonably, a little more about the evidence that we have about the size of the problem and the extent of what I termed the rip-off. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) made a sedentary intervention on this. At his best—he is customarily at his best at this time of night in the Chamber—my hon. Friend's sedentary interventions are worth, I venture to suggest, more than the standing interventions of a great many Opposition Members. He is a close observer of these matters, and he told the House that one is liable to pay around £4 for a hot dog or hamburger. However, the advice that I have from the Royal Parks agency is that the charge could be £7, and that on occasion charges of £12 were sought from innocent tourists. We would all agree that such extortions are not acceptable.
Last Wednesday, I was asked about the nature of the offences that we will designate as park trading offences.


Subject to the passage of the Bill and the approval of Parliament, we shall designate regulation 4(6) of the 1997 regulations, which says that no person using a park shall
carry on any trade or business in a Park, offer anything for sale or hire or expose or have in his possession anything for the purpose of sale or hire therein.
I hope that that deals with the point.
It may help hon. Members if I deal with another point that has exercised the House considerably. I refer to the powers that constables will have to deal with perishable food. A number of right hon. and hon. Members debated this matter under something of a misapprehension. Constables will have the power to seize non-perishable items—that is made plain in the Bill. They are likely to ask the person who they consider to be committing a park trading offence if he wishes to take the perishable items away. If the person so invited does not wish to take the goods away but abandons them, they may be removed by the constable to avoid a litter problem in the park. To spread litter in the park is itself an offence under the regulations. Officers of the Royal Parks Constabulary, or, indeed, Metropolitan police officers, should they happen to be in the park, will have the power to deal with perishable items. I am happy to be able to reassure the House on that significant point.
I was then asked to comment on the possibility that the barrows, having been confiscated, would be allowed back into circulation. It was suggested that the Government would get nothing like their real value, because of deterioration—

It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 6, Noes 227.

Division No. 205]
[12.54 am


AYES


Gill, Christopher
Swayne, Desmond


Hayes, John



Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Mr. Eric Forth and


Nicholls, Patrick
Mr. David Maclean.


NOES


Ainger, Nick
Butler, Mrs Christine


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)



Atkins, Charlotte
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Austin, John
Cann, Jamie


Banks, Tony
Caplin, Ivor


Barnes, Harry
Casale, Roger


Beard, Nigel
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clapham, Michael


Bennett, Andrew F
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Berry, Roger
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Betts, Clive



Blackman, Liz
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Blizzard, Bob
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Clelland, David


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Clwyd, Ann


Bradshaw, Ben
Coaker, Vernon


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Cohen, Harry


Browne, Desmond
Colman, Tony


Burden, Richard
Connarty, Michael


Burgon, Colin
Corbyn, Jeremy





Cousins, Jim
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Crausby, David
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Laxton, Bob


Cummings, John
Lepper, David


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Levitt, Tom


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Darvill, Keith
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Linton, Martin


Davidson, Ian
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Lock, David


Dawson, Hilton
McAvoy, Thomas


Dean, Mrs Janet
McCabe, Steve


Donohoe, Brian H
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Doran, Frank
McDonagh, Siobhain


Drew, David
Macdonald, Calum


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McDonnell, John


Efford, Clive
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Ennis, Jeff
McIsaac, Shona


Etherington, Bill
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Fisher, Mark
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Flint, Caroline
McNulty, Tony


Flynn, Paul
MacShane, Denis


Follett, Barbara
Mactaggart, Fiona


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McWalter, Tony


Fyfe, Maria
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Galloway, George
Mallaber, Judy


Gerrard, Neil
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Gidley, Sandra
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Godsiff, Roger
Martlew, Eric


Goggins, Paul
Meale, Alan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Merron, Gillian


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Moffatt, Laura


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Grogan, John
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hain, Peter
Mountford, Kali


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Olner, Bill


Hepburn, Stephen
O'Neill, Martin


Heppell, John
Perham, Ms Linda


Hesford, Stephen
Pickthall, Colin


Hill, Keith
Pike, Peter L


Hinchliffe, David
Plaskitt, James


Hope, Phil
Pond, Chris


Hopkins, Kelvin
Pope, Greg


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Pound, Stephen


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Prosser, Gwyn


Hurst, Alan
Purchase, Ken


Iddon, Dr Brian
Quinn, Lawrie


Illsley, Eric
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Rammell, Bill


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Rapson, Syd


Jamieson, David
Rendel, David


Jenkins, Brian
Rowlands, Ted


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Roy, Frank


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Ruane, Chris


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Salter, Martin



Sanders, Adrian


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Savidge, Malcolm


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Skinner, Dennis


Keeble, Ms Sally
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Khabra, Piara S



Kilfoyle, Peter
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Soley, Clive


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis






Steinberg, Gerry
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Stevenson, George
Tipping, Paddy


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Stinchcombe, Paul
Touhig, Don


Stoate, Dr Howard
Trickett, Jon


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Stringer, Graham
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Stunell, Andrew
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Tynan, Bill



Vis, Dr Rudi


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Walley, Ms Joan


Temple-Morris, Peter
Ward, Ms Claire


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wareing, Robert N





Watts, David
Woolas, Phil


Webb, Steve
Wray, James


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)



Wilson, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Winnick, David
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Wood, Mike
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

Question accordingly negatived.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill

Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 2

LIABILITY OF DIRECTORS ETC.

'.—(1) If an offence under section 3 committed by a body corporate is shown—

(a) to have been committed with the consent or connivance of an officer, or
(b) to be attributable to any neglect on his part,

the officer as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(2) If the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (1) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body.

(3) "Officer", in relation to a body corporate, means a director, member of the committee of management, chief executive, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body, or a person purporting to act in any such capacity.'.—[Janet Anderson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 14, in clause 3, page 2, line 5, leave out subsection (3).
No. 15, in page 2, line 29, leave out paragraph (a).

Janet Anderson: I am pleased that we have finally reached consideration of this Bill. There was a lengthy debate on the guillotine motion, but I hope that, in the short time available to us, we shall be able to cover some of the Bill's substance.
The new clause and amendments cover three elements: who can commit an offence under the Bill; the nature of the offence; and the penalty for committing the offence. The Government tabled new clause 2 in response to concerns expressed in Committee by the official Opposition. I hope that the House will accept that as an illustration of the consensual approach that most Members have taken towards he Bill.
Concern was expressed about the current formulation of the offence of unlawful disclosure of personal information supplied to the BBC under clause 3. Some members of the Standing Committee were troubled that, as the offence stands, it would not catch the directors of a company that disclosed such information. Hon. Members—particularly the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) who raised the subject in Committee—will know that the new clause is similar to a clause in the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill that fulfils the same purpose.
The Committee thought that the deterrent effect would be enhanced if there were a possibility of directors facing personal criminal liability. Therefore, as Conservative

Members have acknowledged, I undertook to consider the possibility of extending the offence of unlawful disclosure to cover company directors and to introduce a Government new clause on Report. That is what we have done.
Having considered the matter, the Government concluded that it was right to extend the offence in order to catch directors of companies handling such sensitive information. As I said in Committee, we accept that personal information supplied by the Department of Social Security to the BBC or its contractors under the Bill should be as safe as it is in the hands of the DSS or its contractors. That is one of our main concerns and we are confident that the new clause will achieve our aim. The draft new clause was submitted to the official Opposition before it was tabled, and I understand that the hon. Member for Ryedale agrees with it. Subsection (1) states:
If an offence…by a body corporate is shown…to have been committed with the consent or connivance of an officer, or…to be attributable to any neglect on his part,
that person, as well as the company, is guilty of the offence and liable to be prosecuted. The maximum penalty will be imprisonment for up to two years or a fine, or both. In extreme cases, directors could face a prison sentence for an offence committed by their company. A body corporate will include the BBC and its contractors.
Subsection (2) states:
If the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (1) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body.
Subsection (3) defines an officer, for the purposes of this clause, as
a director, member of the committee of management, chief executive, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body, or a person purporting to act in any such capacity.
The new clause will bring the treatment of company directors in cases of unlawful disclosure of personal information into line with the provisions of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 in relation to DSS contractors. Company directors receiving personal data provided by the DSS in connection with free television licences will not be able to escape their responsibility for ensuring that proper measures are in place to prevent unlawful disclosure of such data. Company directors could not encourage or collude in such disclosure and hide behind the defence that they did not themselves commit the act.
If company directors negligently failed to provide proper instructions to staff on the need to keep information provided by the DSS secure, or permitted working practices that led to unlawful disclosure of such information, they could find themselves charged with an offence.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Clearly, "neglect" applies to a failure to perform duties. To what extent does the Bill impose a duty on a director to monitor the performance of the officials in the company?

Janet Anderson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be interested to hear that a similar point


was made in Committee. I note that several hon. Members have complained about the short time for which the Bill was in Committee; it is a pity that they did not seek to be members of that Committee.
I said in a letter to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), who is no longer in his place, that to facilitate the provisions the BBC would tighten up its contracts. In response to another point by the hon. Gentleman, I said that we did not
envisage the contractors incurring hefty legal costs as a result.
I assure the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that the Bill's main priority is to facilitate the issue of free television licences to pensioners over 75 on the due date of 1 November, and to make that process as simple as possible. If he will allow me to continue, I hope that I will be able to reassure him on the point that he has raised.
While providing for limited personal information to be given to the BBC and its contractors to facilitate the administration of free or reduced-fee television licences, the Bill preserves the crucial principle that personal information should be protected from disclosure, including negligent or reckless disclosure. The new clause will strengthen the protection afforded to such information.
I ask the House to resist amendments Nos. 14 and 15, and I shall explain why.
1.15 am
Amendment No. 14 would mean that it was an offence to publish material in the form of a summary or information that had already been lawfully disclosed to the public. The effect of amendment No. 15 would be that the offence of unlawful disclosure could not be tried in a magistrates court.
Amendment No. 14 is illogical. If information has been made public with lawful authority—for instance, if it has been read out in open court or has been made public with the consent of the person who is the subject of the information—why should a BBC employee, for example, be guilty of an offence if he or she simply repeats information received under clause l that is already in the public domain? Similarly, why should it be an offence to disclose information in the form of a summary for, say, statistical purposes, provided that, as is the case with clause 3(3)(a), individuals cannot be identified?
Several hon. Members have tabled questions in recent months about the number of people in their constituencies who will benefit from free television licences for the over-75s. I recall one Opposition Member referring to a specific number in his constituency. I do not know where he got the number from. It is difficult for us to calculate the figures. In many cases, we have not been able to answer those questions as openly as we would like because the information requested is not available.

Mr. Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister. It was I who said that 11,000 people in the Christchurch constituency would benefit. Where did I

get the information? From none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaking at the Dispatch Box during questions.

Janet Anderson: I understand that the figures may have been based on a census that took place some years ago. We want to be as accurate as possible. The amendments would make that difficult.

Mr. Eric Forth: Oh, yes.

Janet Anderson: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is indeed the case. Once the concession is up and running and key statistics can readily be extracted, I am sure that hon. Members would find it unsatisfactory if such information could not be provided because the legislation prevented its disclosure, even in summary form. I am sure that Opposition Members would appreciate the ability to tell how many of their constituents were benefiting from the concession. I hope that they will remind them that it was introduced by a Labour Government.
Of course, we must ensure that personal information is protected. The Bill aims to preserve that important principle. It protects personal information in the same way as it would be protected under section 123 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. That section makes it an offence for an employee or former employee of the Department of Social Security to release personal information obtained in the course of his or her employment.
The Government believe that clause 3 strikes the right balance. It provides a firm sanction against thoughtless disclosure, but provides a defence in cases where the disclosure follows a rational process of consideration of the lawfulness of that disclosure. That was raised in Committee, and I hope that Opposition Members—of those who are present, only the hon. Member for Ryedale, I believe, served on the Committee—will be reassured. We believe that the clause balances individuals' right to have their personal information protected and their right not to be treated as criminals without proper cause.
On amendment No. 15, clause 3(6) specifies the penalties available in the event of unlawful disclosure of information supplied to the BBC by the DSS. If a person is tried and convicted in a magistrates court, he or she is liable to be imprisoned for up to six months, or to pay a fine of up to £5,000, or both. If convicted in the Crown court, he or she may be imprisoned for up to two years or be liable to an unlimited fine, or both.
Opposition Members said on Second Reading that some of the penalties were too draconian. However, the official Opposition in Committee said that they had been persuaded that the penalties were necessary and were not draconian, as there was a need to protect the information as much as possible.
The seriousness of offences under the Bill will vary from malicious to accidental disclosure. The amount of information disclosed may also be relevant. It is therefore appropriate to provide for proceedings in a magistrates court and in the Crown court, depending on the seriousness of the case. Hon. Members will appreciate that not all offences will be sufficiently serious to merit prosecution. However, we must make both modes of trial available, and leave it to the courts to determine the cases


that can be tried in the magistrates court, if the defendant agrees, and those that are so serious that they must go to the Crown court. I therefore commend new clause 2 to the House and ask the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) not to press amendments Nos. 14 and 15.

Mr. John Greenway: I thank the Minister for laying a draft statutory instrument before the House on the social security information that would be released to the BBC and its contractors if the Bill was enacted. It makes clear the exact information that must be provided: the name, date of birth, address and national insurance number of everyone over the age of 74. In one sense, that is a narrow definition, but, in another, it highlights the fact that the disclosure of such information would not be countenanced outside Government in any other circumstances.
On Second Reading, when my hon. Friends last had the opportunity to discuss the matter, we made it clear that we regard such information as sensitive. The legal structure, which the Bill outlines, needs to provide a realistic prospect of the required information remaining confidential. To achieve that, we need a framework of criminal law, for which the Bill tries to provide.
As the Minister made clear, there was a gap in the Government's original proposal, because it did not appear that the company directors who would be responsible for processing the information to provide free television licences could be caught by the offences under the Bill. I am therefore grateful to the Minister for acknowledging the strength of our argument and giving me the opportunity to consider the wording of new clause 2. It fulfils the requirement that we had in mind.
If any company wrongfully made use of sensitive information, it would not be right for junior members of staff or for the body corporate to be on the receiving end of any prosecutions. The directors should be responsible. It is crucial for the people at the top of the BBC and the contractors—currently TV Licensing—who will be responsible for implementing the free scheme and for supervising the proper use of information to understand the need to pay the highest regard to confidentiality. They must recognise that any breach of confidentiality will be extremely serious. We can achieve that only by making the directors personally liable for any wrongful use of the information.
I hope that it is clear from my remarks that we support the new clause—it is what we asked for. It will not only improve the Bill; it will strengthen it in the key respect of responsibility at the very top of the BBC and the contractors for their supervision of the arrangements to enable free licences to be provided. That leads me to the standard of proof or the absolute nature of the offence of wrongful disclosure, which we discussed in Committee, but which, for want of a better expression, still lies on the table, although my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) touched on it in his intervention on the Minister.
We debated whether a word should be added to clause 3 to make the disclosure wilful, negligent or reckless. The current drafting makes it absolute, which prompts me to ask what would happen if disclosure were accidental because an electronic transfer had reached the wrong destination. The Minister agreed to my suggestion that her

officials speak with the Data Protection Commissioner. Those matters were discussed in Committee during consideration of the Data Protection Act 1998. The commissioner was concerned that members of her staff should not find themselves on the receiving end of a criminal charge because an accidental transmission had occurred. I hope that that issue is still under consideration and that it might be addressed in the other place.

Mr. John Hayes: My hon. Friend's point requires amplification. Close scrutiny and tight wording are required as the accidental or negligent loss or transmission of data are hard to define. Having been in the information technology industry for a considerable part of my professional life, I am aware of that difficulty. We must be very careful indeed.

Mr. Greenway: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support and I acknowledge his expertise in this area. I suspect that my reading of the Bill—clause 3 creates an absolute offence—may be confirmed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham should he catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not a lawyer, but I cannot come to the view that there is any requirement on negligence or recklessness or for the disclosure to be wilful, although it is clear from our discussion in Committee that that is what the Government intend. I hope that they will consider the matter of accidental disclosure.

Janet Anderson: That issue was raised in Committee and we undertook to discuss it with the Data Protection Commissioner's office. I am sorry that we may not be able to debate it in detail, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it has been discussed. The Data Protection Commissioner is clearly not in a position to determine whether a particular formulation of an offence is appropriate in the context of another piece of legislation—the 1998 Act, which created a general offence to cover all aspects of data protection, has been referred to. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however, the difference is that this Bill deals with a very narrow range of activity.
The Data Protection Commissioner assured my officials that she supported the inclusion of an appropriate offence aimed at restricting the subsequent use or disclosure of DSS information by BBC staff, if there were also an effective defence on which an innocent individual who made a genuine and isolated mistake could rely. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Greenway: I am greatly reassured by the intention, but Lam afraid that I shall have to rely on some of the legal brains in the other place to tease the issue out once more. I do not mean to disparage the Minister in any way; I think that, in respect of the offence that we are discussing, she and I are in a pretty similar position.
I have an inkling that the staff at TV Licensing who might be caught by our creation of an offence that extended more widely than was strictly necessary have not the faintest idea that they are likely to be affected. We have a duty to ensure that those at the top of the organisations that will implement the scheme understand and face their responsibilities, and new clause 2 would


assist greatly in that respect. However, we also have a duty to ensure that the interests of the staff—clerical and administrative assistants—who would implement it on a day-to-day basis are not unfairly caught by the creation of an offence that would cover an entirely accidental loss of information and its transmission to the wrong destination.
I hope that what I have said makes it clear that we welcome the new clause. I hope that the House will support it, although I still think that the issue of accidental transmission needs to be addressed.

Mr. Hogg: Let me begin by declaring an interest, although I am not sure that it is strictly necessary: my wife is a governor of the BBC.
I am not as enthusiastic as some about the new clause. I think that subsection (1)(a) is perfectly sensible, and I have no objection to it. I am more concerned about subsection (1)(b), because it uses the words "attributable to any neglect" on the part of a director. It will be necessary to define the director's duties before it is possible to determine what the neglect is. Neglect in this context attracts a substantial period of imprisonment—a period not exceeding two years, if the conviction be on indictment.
I think that we are creating an offence without the directors to whom the penalty attaches being very clear about the nature of their duties. I think it right for a director to be obliged to lay down a system whereby information is safeguarded, but I am not at all clear about the extent to which the Bill requires directors, for example, to monitor the carrying out of the duties, or to perform some overseeing function. We are creating quite a serious penalty without defining what directors must do in the first instance, in respect of which they can be found to have been in neglect. I do not expect the House to resolve the issue sensibly at this hour, but there is a problem that must be addressed in the other place if directors are not to be faced with an unquantifiable liability.

Mr. Hayes: I am reluctant to appear to differ with my right hon. and learned Friend, but is he saying that, notwithstanding the clear duties placed on directors, the Bill should specify the procedures by which they fulfil those duties? If so, that could apply to all legislation on all subjects, and we would be in an impossible mess.

Mr. Hogg: The offence is neglect of duty. We must determine what the duty is before we can determine what the neglect is. If we do not spell out the duties in advance, the directors or any other officer cannot tell in advance what they should or should not do to perform their statutory duties. The extent of the duties must be defined. The Bill does not do that. I am not grumbling, because it is late at night, but this question must be addressed.

Janet Anderson: I said earlier that it is in the interests of a company director, knowing that he may be liable for such an offence, to take proper steps to ensure that his staff follow proper procedures. If a company director negligently failed to provide proper instructions to staff on the need to keep secure information provided by the

Department of Social Security, or permitted working practices that led to unlawful disclosure of such information, he could be charged with an offence. Surely, the knowledge of that would be sufficient for company directors to put proper practices into place.

Mr. Hogg: With respect to the hon. Lady, she is not right about that. She has elided the words "neglect" and "negligently": they are different. Neglect is a failure to do that which someone is required to do, and it does not require negligence. She used the word "negligent". If she is saying that "negligence" and "neglect" are the same, so be it, and let us put it in the Bill. Neglect means omission; it does not mean negligent omission. It just means failure—but failure to do what? She really must address this question. I am not blaming her for not doing so this late at night; no one would expect her to do that.
The problem goes to the nature of directors' responsibilities. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that possible problem, so that her hon. and right hon. Friends can address this matter in the other place.

Mr. David Maclean: Is not the difficulty for the directors compounded by the fact that clause 3(3), which I hope to address in my amendments, will permit them to release certain information? It is not quite as the Minister says. There is a straightforward obligation on them to keep all information secret, and they should set up systems to guarantee that. They will have to juggle: they will have to keep some information secret, but will be allowed to publish other information, which will make their difficulties infinitely greater.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) makes a sound point. Although I am against codes of practice, because they are non-statutory and owe their existence to the Executive, if we are to take this general approach of creating an offence of neglect without specifying duties, we will have to introduce a range of non-statutory codes of practice. That will raise problems under the European convention on human rights and the statute that we have passed.
The House should be cautious about creating statutory offences when the obligations have not been spelled out. That is the point I am making.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I want to record my appreciation and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends for the observations of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) in Committee, and to commend the Government for this display of cross-party co-operation, which seems entirely appropriate in dealing with a measure that commands the support of both sides of the House. Its examination has proved equally uncontroversial.
I welcome new clause 2. I do not want to cross swords, or indeed to follow very far the arguments of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who may have a point that is worthy of consideration in another place, although I am not as troubled by it as he is. Ensuring the liability of the directors for disclosure underlines the importance of the confidentiality of the information that is handled.
On the formulation that the Government have used, as I understand it, the Minister is following very closely the wording of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. I believe that the Government of which the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham was a member were responsible for introducing that Act. I am not aware that that formulation has given rise to the concerns that he has expressed. It seems that the neglect is plainly the neglect to take the measures that would have been necessary to prevent disclosure from taking place.
I conclude by saying how grateful we are for the measures that the Government have taken.

Mr. Maclean: Before we commenced on the group of amendments, I had assumed that the only major point of contention that the other place would wish to look at was that highlighted in new clause 1, which we are not debating in the House tonight. I know that the other place will be greatly vexed about that issue and the fact that people who are currently receiving free television licences may not continue to get them.
I thought that that was the only point of contention that the other place would want to major on until I heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) make his very telling points from a knowledgeable legal position on the difference between neglect and negligent. Having listened to his wise words and tried to grasp the concept behind them, I think that the Government may have been slightly negligent in the drafting of subsection (1)(b).
If the Government intended that officers who were negligent should be prosecuted and, in fact, have stated that officers who have committed any neglect should be prosecuted—we now know that there is a fundamental legal difference between them—although we have no time tonight to debate the matter because of the ruthless guillotine that the Government have imposed on this little piece of legislation, which we have not had a chance to debate in the Chamber before on Report, the other place will wish to take new clause 2 apart—well, not perhaps take it apart, but slice little bits off it.

Janet Anderson: rose—

Mr. Denis MacShane: rose—

Mr. Maclean: I give way to the hon. Lady and then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Janet Anderson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that, if he and his colleagues had not spent so much time on the guillotine motion, we would have had more time to debate the substance of the Bill? I am sure that the over-75s in his constituency will take note of that.

Mr. Maclean: I reject that entirely. The Government had a three-hour guillotine motion, which was rightfully debated by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Lady may recall that, in the earlier guillotine motion debate, Members on both sides of the House participated. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) condemned her own Government for the ruthlessness of the guillotines that have been imposed today, so if the Minister is suggesting that we should have

more time to debate that aspect of the Bill, the Government's guillotine motion should have given us three, four or five hours—in truth, there should have been no guillotine motion at all on the Bill.

Mr. MacShane: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclean: I will in a moment, but I am responding to the point that the Minister made.
The Government may have attempted to justify a guillotine motion on the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, which had been debated, but the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill has not previously been debated on Report.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has rebutted the Minister. He should not make a meal of it. He must get on to the new clause.

Mr. Maclean: I accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker; that was the rebuttal. Whenever I see a Government Member down, whether she is a lady or not, I want to continue to put the boot in further.

Mr. MacShane: As someone who was prepared to support the right hon. Gentleman's new clause, which has not been selected, I agree with him. However, he and his colleagues—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Amendments that have not been selected have not been selected. We cannot talk about them.

Mr. Maclean: I am glad that I am not being chastised on this occasion, and I am sorry if I inadvertently led the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) astray, so that he incurred your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely suggesting, by way of introduction to my remarks and my new clause and amendments in this group, that I thought that new clause 2 was reasonably innocuous—although I did not like the terminology of parts of it, which I thought was not as clear as it could be—and that I was not concerned about subsection (1)(b) until I heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham in this debate. I am sure that the Government can expect problems in another place with that provision. I have already heard from many noble Friends in another place that they were looking forward to the Bill, to debate their own amendment—essentially new clause 1, which we are not discussing.

Mr. MacShane: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you give me some guidance on how the right hon. Gentleman can incessantly discuss his new clause, which has not been selected, when I am not allowed to do so? Could we have some guidance from you on that matter?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not like having to rise to my feet all the time to keep hon. Members in order. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman is quite right. That was the last time that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) will mention new clause 1.


It should not take me to remind the House that that new clause has not been selected—we all know that. Perhaps that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Maclean: Precisely, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I had mentioned it for the last time and then passed on to say—as I think that Hansard will record—that I shall now turn to my amendments Nos. 14 and 15. It was not until the hon. Member for Rotherham made his point of order that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were forced to mention those words and that number, which I shall not mention.
Amendment No. 14 suggests leaving out subsection (3). I want to do that specifically because, for the first time, we shall be giving away secret information to a private company. Information that is controlled by the Government and the Department of Social Security will be issued. Each year, thousands of names and related private social security information will be issued to a private company, and potentially to dozens of other private companies that are acting on behalf of the BBC.
If the Government decide to issue information in that way and not as I have suggested in my proposed alternative, I think that it is incumbent on them to say that there are no circumstances in which that organisation will be able to publish any of the information at all. If we are to breach the precedent of not issuing Government information to private companies, and then breach it a bit further by saying, "You can't publish—except summary information", or, "You can disclose information that might already have been disclosed", we shall be creating ever more breaches in the absolute rule of secrecy.
There is no absolute necessity for the BBC or other organisations to publish summary information. If the BBC has information, it can feed it back to the Department of Social Security, which will make the decision on publication. The Department of Social Security should already have the information. It will know how many names it has issued to the BBC, and how many people aged 74 it has told the BBC will be entitled to a licence. The Department will have all that information. If it wanted the information organised on a constituency basis, it might have to establish its own systems.
How would the BBC have that information on a constituency basis? If the Department of Social Security does not know the number of pensioners aged 74 or over in individual constituencies, it will merely pass name, address and national insurance number to the BBC, and apparently the BBC will make that information available in summary form—presumably by using a parliamentary address cross-checker and a parliamentary constituency reference book. That information, which was given to the BBC specifically for the purpose of granting a free television licence, will be turned into a pack of other—no doubt useful and interesting—summary information revealing more general details about our constituents and the breakdown by age in all the constituencies in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Paterson: Will my right hon. Friend give us the benefit of his experience in the Home Office and tell us whether he thinks that the provisions are workable as drafted?

Mr. Maclean: I think that there is a dangerous precedent in the subsections that I want to delete.

Mr. Hayes: Could not the problem that my right hon. Friend has described be dealt with by developing the non-statutory codes of conduct that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) suggested? That would make it possible for the conduct that he describes to be controlled at least in some way, albeit voluntarily.

Mr. Maclean: I am happy for there to be voluntary codes of practice setting out the duty of the directors, the officers and the chief executive. Presumably, some of the terminology in the new clause is designed to catch BBC governors and director-generals. They must be the "other similar officers", just as the wee secretary involved in selling dodgy hamburgers was caught by the previous Bill. However, I do not want voluntary codes of practice to be used to keep secret our information that we have given to the Department of Social Security. Why should my constituents aged 74 and over have to depend on a voluntary code of practice to ensure that summary information about them is not published by BBC companies or the BBC itself?
We know that the summary information will be used to put extra leverage on the Government at a time when they might decide not to increase the licence fee or to restrict the concession or claw it back. If there was a little bit in the press in a couple of years saying that the Government were finding the concession too great, too onerous or too costly, within months, information issued by the BBC under commercial acolytes collecting the fee would point out how many thousand desperate pensioners there were in each constituency. If Parliament wanted to vote for such a measure, we would be blackmailed into not doing so by the weight of the numbers argument. I am not saying that the Government would be blackmailing us—the BBC and others would be blackmailing Parliament and the Government.
There is no need to issue summary information. I appeal to the Minister to keep it all secret and thereby ensure that people have confidence in the system that the Government are trying to set up.

Janet Anderson: The Government have brought forward the Bill in good faith, because we believe that it is the easiest and simplest way of ensuring that pensioners get the free licences to which they are entitled. Given their antics, we can only assume that the Conservatives are intent on scuppering the scheme.

Mr. Maclean: If we wanted to scupper the Bill, we could have done so ages ago. The Minister is endangering her legislation by adding a new clause—

It being five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the allocation of time motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Serbia and Iraq (Sanctions)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I wish to concentrate on Iraq, because my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) and I were able to have 35 minutes of the Prime Minister's time a couple of weeks ago, with his PPS and his Foreign Office secretary, and he kindly said that he would consider some of our proposals.
My first question is: the United Nations has been reporting since August 1999 on the stock situation in Iraq involving food and medical supplies, and these monthly reports show a satisfactory distribution picture. Why are Her Majesty's Government continuing to identify a picture of hoarding of these humanitarian supplies? That is my first question.
My second question is that the President of the Security Council in January 1999 reminded the Security Council that there should be monitoring of the impact of sanctions on the human condition of those countries under sanctions, and also that the chairpersons of sanctions committees should visit their respective countries to obtain first-hand information on the ground. Why does that not happen in the case of Iraq, and what are the Government planning to do about it?
The third question is that there is no sign of an end to the stalemate between the UN Security Council and the Government of Iraq with regard to resolution 1284. This stalemate is entirely at the expense of the civilian population. Keeping that fact in mind, what do the Government propose as an initiator of the resolution to end the stalemate?
The fourth question is that the educated public in Iraq refer with increasing frequency to the suffering of the Iraqi people under sanctions, and to evidence of violations of human rights and international law. How do the Government answer that observation?
My fifth question is that it is by now well known that the smuggling of oil occurs across all of Iraq's borders. It is also known that large amounts of the income from illegally exported oil are used by the Iraqi regime for expenditure on items of no value to the deprived Iraqi population, including the building of palaces. What do the Government propose be done about this? Why are ships carrying illegal oil intercepted in the Gulf, while large fleets of trucks—I am told at least 200 a day—carrying illegal oil from northern Iraq into Turkey are left unhindered?
In September of last year, I went to Baghdad for the second time—I had been there first in 1994—with the former Taoiseach, Albert Reynolds, who is not a naive man. We were appalled by the degradation of human beings. This country is perhaps the oldest part of civilisation. It is not all a question of the manipulation of propaganda; there is real human tragedy. It is also true that the Iraqi people are proud, and that they will therefore never allow the inspectors to return, given what has happened.
One helpful action would be to ease student travel and allow the new generation of Iraqis to see something of the outside world from which they have been cut off. Secondly, financial responsibility should be returned to the Iraqi Government. Thirdly, Iraq should be allowed to become a member of OPEC again—a belief held very strongly by Hans von Sponeck, the German diplomat who resigned his post as UN co-ordinator on a matter of principle.
Fourthly, reconstruction and an early overhaul of the Iraqi oil industry should be allowed. Oil experts around the world, and especially the Japanese, are amazed that the industry there should function at all, given the sanctions regime. Finally, water supplies must be monitored. In high summer, the great Tigris and Euphrates rivers have been reduced to little more than sewers.
Confidence-building measures should be taken, where possible. Do rogue countries exist, or just rogue regimes? Behind the statistics stand real people. The UN co-ordinators, Dennis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, went to Iraq as objective people. They say that 167 children die every day, on average. We must remember the fathers and mothers of those children.
The problems in Iraq have been going on for something like 10 years. Where is the conscience of the world? We cannot believe blindly that economic sanctions will deliver solutions, because they have not done so. If Ministers could see what I and Albert Reynolds saw, their consciences would not allow them to sleep at night.
Risks must be taken for peace. Nothing is solved by sanctions. We are concerned about the degradation of human beings.
This debate is also about Kosovo, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and Serbia. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax was going to speak in the debate, but I can tell the Minister that we are worried about depleted uranium. I hope that the Foreign Office will reflect on an article by Felicity Arbuthnot that appeared in the Sunday Herald in Scotland. It stated:
The United Nations has issued an internal warning to all its officials in Kosovo that the water supply in the former warzone may be so contaminated by radioactive deposits of depleted uranium from Nato airstrikes that it is no longer fit to drink.
Depleted uranium, used in military shells, has been linked to Gulf war syndrome and the spiralling levels of cancer and birth deformities.
That is a real problem. A seven-page United Nations report has come into my hands. It was issued to UN personnel at the UN headquarters in Pristina, and it marks out the worst-affected areas of depleted uranium concentrations in that country. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), who went to Serbia in March, knows how much concern there is in the hospitals about the issue.
I conclude with one thought: the imposition of sanctions, which is the subject of the debate, far from weakening the position of those who are in charge of Governments, such as Mr. Milosevic or Saddam Hussein, actually strengthens them. Sanctions mean black market revenues, and who do those black market revenues go to?

Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: I would like my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to reflect on a simple issue that is political,


not economic. He and I have been to hospitals in Belgrade. As a first-world country, Serbia had a success rate of 35 per cent. in dealing with almost all cancers. It has now been reduced to 15 per cent. People are dying in hospitals, entirely unnecessarily. The anger that is felt by professional—not necessarily political—people at what is being done to their patients in those hospitals is politically entirely contrary to what we wish to deliver. Those people, who are opinion formers in Serbian society, are now all anti-Milosevic, but they are silenced by what we are doing.
I know that my hon. Friend will reflect on this. Moreover, no one in the House has a more honourable tradition of fighting against regimes of this kind than the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), particularly when it comes to sanctions. He must know that the distinction in this case is that we are encouraging the regime by imposing sanctions. As I must ask a question in this intervention, will my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow reflect on that?

Mr. Dalyell: My reflection is that the sanctions imposed against both Serbia and Iraq are totally different from those in relation to South Africa. The conditions in South Africa were entirely different, for the sanctions were asked for by a substantial majority of the population. I have met no one in Iraq or Serbia who thinks that sanctions are in any way helpful. Indeed, they bolster rather than weaken regimes.
It is late at night. This is a time for reflection. It is also a time of happiness for children in this country. We ought to think about the consequences of our actions for the children of Serbia and Iraq.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): May I first apologise for arriving a little late and for missing the opening sentences of the address of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)?

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend was not late.

Mr. Hain: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I am grateful to him for allowing us another opportunity to discuss Iraq. Along with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), I respect my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in Iraq, and his genuine concern for the suffering of the Iraqi people. We both want to see more done to help them.
My hon. Friend raised a number of thoughtful and interesting points, some of which I will reply to this evening. Those which I do not have the opportunity to address directly I will reply to in detail in correspondence, and will place a copy in the Library.
When we last debated the situation in Iraq on 24 March, I commended to the House the provisions of United Nations Security Council resolution 1284. After months of intensive effort, Britain secured adoption of that ground-breaking new resolution in December last year. It establishes a new platform for the UN's dealings with Iraq. It deals comprehensively with a range of issues,

notably the humanitarian situation, disarmament, and Kuwaiti issues, including stolen property and missing civilians. It represents the collective will of the Security Council and has the force of international law.
Since I last debated this matter with my hon. Friend, excellent progress has been made on implementing the provisions of resolution 1284. I can update the House with the progress on humanitarian provisions, every one of which is unconditional. The resolution removed the ceiling on the amount of oil that Iraq is allowed to export to fund the purchase of a wide range of humanitarian goods under the oil for food programme.
Iraq's oil reserves are second only to those of Saudi Arabia. Those factors, together with the recent recovery in world oil prices, have boosted Iraq's oil exports back to, if not above, the peak historic level of around $15 billion a year. Iraq's oil Ministers recently announced that the country plans to increase exports further by about 700,000 barrels a day. That would put Iraq among the world's top five oil exporters. Furthermore, the Security Council has doubled the allocation from oil for food for the purchase of oil spare parts, to $600 million.
All that means that an estimated $10 billion will be available for the humanitarian programme in Iraq this year. The funding is available now, and it is unconditional. Food, medical supplies and other equipment can be delivered straight to the Iraqi people. With that huge amount of revenue available, one cannot help but ask why we still see pictures—my hon. Friend has experienced the reality—of malnourished and sick Iraqi children. Those pictures rightly provoke our anger, sympathy and compassion.
There is no need for those children to want or to suffer. Why do they? It is an outrage that the Iraqi Government wilfully deny food and medicine to children and play politics with their suffering. The Government hope that by doing so, they will play on our sympathies and emotions so that we shall abandon Security Council resolutions and lift sanctions, leaving Iraq free to develop its weapons of mass destruction and reconstitute the threat to the region that it has posed time and again.
We see no pictures of starving children from northern Iraq. My hon. Friend must address that point. The same sanctions apply there, but Saddam's writ does not run. In northern Iraq, the United Nations, not the Iraqi authorities, is implementing the oil for food programme. It is doing so in a manner designed to bring maximum benefit to the Iraqi people. As a result, the programme is making vast improvements to people's lives. New homes and hospitals are being built, minefields cleared and food and medicine delivered. All that could happen in the centre and south of Iraq if only the Government in Baghdad would allow it.
The truth is that Saddam Hussein has no interest in putting his people's needs first. He chooses to reject offers of humanitarian assistance from other countries, additional to the oil for food programme, including assistance specifically targeted to meet children's needs. Yet he is encouraging journalists and campaigners to come to Baghdad and to tour the children's wards in its hospitals. It is a scandal that the doctors cannot get the drugs that they need, but the fault lies with the Iraqi Government. They failed to order enough medicines under the UN programme, then they failed to deliver them, despite the huge resources available.
Saddam Hussein makes much more money by selling oil illegally. None of it is spent on food or medicine. It is spent instead on luxury items for those closest to Saddam whose loyalty he wishes to retain. It is spent on building new palaces and theme parks, and on holding spectacular celebrations for Saddam Hussein's birthday. By our estimate—my hon. Friend referred to this—illegal exports of Iraqi oil outside the UN programme reached $250 million last year, and $170 million so far this year. We and other members of the Security Council are making serious and successful efforts to limit that trade. It deprives the United Nations humanitarian programme of revenue and it lines the pockets of Saddam Hussein's regime at the expense of the Iraqi people. We thus remain committed to the multinational interdiction force in the Gulf and continue to discuss with regional states how best to crack down on the illegal trade.
We welcome Iran's recent action against several vessels containing smuggled Iraqi oil. We are also pressing Turkey for action—an issue that my hon. Friend rightly raised.
I discussed the disarmament provisions of Security Council resolution 1284 with Hans Blix, the executive chairman of the new arms inspection body—UNMOVIC—when I was in New York in April. I was extremely impressed by his ability and by his highly professional approach to the challenging job before him. In accordance with the resolution, he has drawn up an organisational plan for UNMOVIC. I am pleased to report that, on 13 April, the Security Council unanimously approved that plan. Dr. Blix is now concentrating on recruiting and training his staff. When that is complete, I trust that those—like my hon. Friend—who have contacts with Baghdad will urge Iraq to take the genuine opportunity that is on offer for a fresh start with a wholly new disarmament body, and for co-operation with Dr. Blix and his staff.
Recently, I met Yuli Vorontsov—appointed by the Secretary-General to be his co-ordinator on Kuwaiti issues. Like us, Vorontsov remains extremely concerned that Iraq is not co-operating with the tripartite commission process—the process chaired by the International Committee of the Red Cross, designed to account for the whereabouts of the 605 Kuwaitis and others missing since the end of the Gulf war. I urge Iraq to put an end to the suffering of the families of those who have been missing for so many years. They deserve to know what has happened to their relatives.
My hon. Friend urges us to lift sanctions immediately and unconditionally, because of the serious humanitarian situation in Iraq. Under Security Council resolutions, sanctions can be lifted only when Iraq has complied with its disarmament obligations and following a review by the Security Council of Iraq's policies and practices—including its implementation of all relevant resolutions.
In March last year, a UN panel of disarmament experts confirmed the analysis of UNSCOM—the United Nations Special Commission—that serious questions remain unanswered. My hon. Friend would surely not suggest that Britain—a permanent member of the Security Council—should decide to abandon the council's resolutions, which have the force of international law. Does he really believe that, if sanctions were lifted now, Saddam Hussein would suddenly change the habit of a lifetime and start putting his people's needs first?
The answer lies with resolution 1284, which clearly maps out the way to the lifting of sanctions and, for the first time, provides for the suspension of sanctions, if Iraq complies with a standard well short of that required for sanctions lift. The Iraqi Government are fond of claiming that they have given up their weapons of mass destruction and that they have nothing to hide. If that is so, then they have everything to gain by resuming full co-operation with the UN.
On Serbia, my hon. Friend raised several issues to do with depleted uranium. There are genuine matters for concern that we have addressed. I shall look afresh at the points he made, if he wants me to do so, to consider whether we can investigate and respond to them. Again, I shall place a copy of my letter in the Library.
The European Union and its international partners are working on the basis of a dual strategy: one that combines the deliberate political isolation of the Milosevic regime with a determined effort to engage with Serbian civil society in all its forms. With increased activity recently by Commissioner Chris Patten and by High Representative Javier Solana, the EU is placing even greater emphasis on its relations with the Serbian democratic opposition and the Montenegrin Government, and on support for independent media, non-governmental organisations and civil society in general.
The Serbian Government's actions last week—including the mass arrests of student activists, the takeover of the only independent television station in Belgrade, further repression of other independent media and police violence against the citizens of Belgrade—show why Milosevic must remain an international pariah. We shall continue and strengthen our efforts to support the embattled independent media and the journalists who are risking so much to preserve a basic human right—that of freedom of expression.
My hon. Friend will know of the EU's energy for democracy programme. That was designed to help a certain number of local authorities in Serbia which, because they are controlled by democratic political forces opposed to Milosevic, were suffering particular discrimination in the provision by central Government of fuel for heating. Despite Milosevic's initial attempts to block the free imports of heating oil, the European Union has prevailed. The pilot programme has now been extended to other Serbian towns.

Mr. Dalyell: Before 10 o'clock, I spent the evening with a visiting Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation from Bulgaria. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Bulgaria during the conflict and there was close co-operation with NATO. Even the Bulgarians now favour a policy of lifting sanctions. Would it not be wise at least to talk to them while they are in London about their reflections, hard hit as they are by what has happened on the Danube?

Mr. Hain: I appreciate the points that my hon. Friend makes. Certainly, we are very happy to continue discussing with the Bulgarians their points of concern.
We continue to believe that a policy of isolating the Governments of Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia—FRY—and making use of a range of


targeted sanctions must be the key element in our strategy. In addition to the UN arms embargo, which has been in force since 1998, Britain implements the following EU sanctions: a visa ban on Milosevic and his cronies that covers about 800 named individuals; a ban on new investment which does not affect existing EU investments; a freeze on the assets of the FRY and Serbian Governments that extends to individuals and companies deemed to be associated with the regime, and a prohibition on making funds available to the targets of the asset freeze; a ban on the sale or supply of petroleum and petroleum products; and a ban on the sale or supply of equipment that might be used for international repression or terrorism. There are also UK national export controls on dual-use goods and on televisual equipment that is destined for the state media. The EU flight ban is currently suspended.
The sanctions regime bears no resemblance to the comprehensive international sanctions regime that was imposed on the FRY from 1992 until shortly after the signing of the Dayton agreement in 1995. I should make it clear that it does not include a comprehensive trade embargo.
The implementation of the financial sanctions regime is being revised to make clearer which Yugoslav companies are deemed to be owned or controlled by the FRY and Serbian Governments. There will be a "white list" of those companies in Serbia that are not deemed to be under such control or ownership. We will do our utmost to ensure that no companies are persecuted because of their presence on the new EU white list. However, it should be remembered that many companies in Serbia that do not align themselves with the ruling parties already suffer discrimination and harassment.
We have made a number of moves since the Kosovo conflict to reduce the impact of sanctions on ordinary citizens. Most recently, we have suspended the flight ban on Serbia for six months. We are keeping sanctions under review, and will adjust the regime as appropriate. However, we must avoid giving Milosevic easy propaganda victories by the early or unwarranted loosening of sanctions, particularly in a period of increased repression in Serbia.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Economic sanctions are an extraordinarily crude weapon. They cannot be targeted in the way that my hon. Friend suggests. The oncology hospital that we visited in Belgrade had only the desire to obtain medicines to treat cancer. Its doctors have to take bags of deutschmarks across the border into Germany to buy those medicines. Will my hon. Friend reflect on that point for a moment?

Mr. Hain: I shall happily reflect on that point, but I ask my hon. and learned Friend to reflect on the consequences of simply lifting sanctions in the way he invites us to do. That would effectively allow Milosevic a free rein, and that is the problem with the sincere and heartfelt points that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway made about Iraq and Serbia. They have not come up with a serious alternative strategy.
Although we and our European partners have taken care to minimise the unintended impact of sanctions, we cannot always compensate for Milosevic's wilful disregard of his own people's welfare. For example, the difficulties associated with health care provision in Serbia—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-four minutes past Two o'clock.